DAMage Report: What Color is Whitewash in the Crayola Box?

Excuse me... did someone roll us back into the 50s and 60s when I wasn't looking?  The rise in bigotry has been more and more evident in politics lately, but in the arena of the arts? 


In Arizona artists and children painting a mural on an elementary school featuring faces of kids who attend the school were the subject of drive-by racist slurs. The anti-black art campaign, which demanded the removal of  a dark-skinned latino child's portrait in the mural was adopted as well by a radio talk-show host who also served as a city councilman. The twat has since lost his show. Following the protests the school principal revealed a decidely chicken colored backbone, and ordered the faces of the Latino and Black students to be changed to Caucasian skin. When THAT was protested, he claimed it was an artistic decision. Right.


The Councilman Twat said "I am not a racist individual, but I will tell you depicting a black guy in the middle of that mural, based upon who's President of the United States today and based upon the history of this community, when I grew up we had four black families - who I have been very good friends with for years - to depict the biggest picture on that building as a black person, I would have to ask the question, 'Why?'


Apparently anyone with skin darker than pasty white looks the same to the Councilman. It's always fun to note that invariably the protest of  "i'm not a racist" from a bigot's mouth includes "i'm good friends with them there black people." (Please insert visual here of me making gaggy face with finger down throat.)


The principal has since back-pedaled and allowed the mural to remain as intended, reflecting the diversity of it's student body. Ya think?


But back to the first point - are we sliding back as a society to an era when people think it's OKAY to yell racial slurs at not only adults, but children?  If art is a reflection of society, and is supposed to get a reaction, then what this mural revealed about the community of Prescott, Arizona, and possibly a portion of the American people is very dark and scary.  Quick hand me the whitewash crayon. We can't have anything "dark" showing up here.


If the art world is dominated by white males, then that singular perspective is going to be reflected in the arts. A friend of mine, who tours with Disney's Lion King, told me recently that the number of roles for a middle-aged black man on Broadway or theater anywhere in the country, is almost non-existent. No one writes the roles, therefore the roles aren't there for the actors. 


It is interesting that it was easier to find news articles and reference points for gender bias in the arts, than it was to locate information about racism and the arts. Does that mean it doesn't exist. Of course not. It means it hasn't been deemed news worthy.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/arizona-elementary-school-mural_n_601436.html


http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/06/principal-arizona-prescott-mural-wont-be-lightened-immigration-racism-obama

Graffiti Art: Sacrosanct or Sacred Cash Cow?

Should really good graffiti art be treated as a rare and valuable artistic resource to be preserved or should it be left in it's original environment and let whatever happens to it happen, as part of the validity (or invalidating in some cases) of the piece? 


That question, as well as who really owns the art has been a big arts world debate this past month. 

The heated discussions have been sparked by our quirky friend, Mister Banksy. Who no doubt is having quite the chuckle over all this. I think I'm in love with this guy. His self-effacing and contradictory sense of humor definitely makes him as intriguing as his art. So I take back everything I ever said about the art always being more important than the artist. It's no surprise that the artist Banksy is becoming as much an artistic product as the art he produces.  I do believe whether this is intentional or not depends on which brand of coffee he drank on a particular morning. And that makes me smile.


Banksy defies, resists, hops in and out of, any and all boxes the public, including art critics, try to place him in. The thing is he doesn't do it in a vapid "look at me" way. If you study his art with its political, ecological and social commentaries you can see that he creates to provoke thought. Isn't that what art is supposed to do. From this is born the conundrum. Should it be preserved and protected so generations can be exposed to its thought provokedness... or by removing it and turning it into a commodity, does it invalidate the purpose of the art? 
Is it like the process of living: you're either lucky you got to experience something by being in right place and time or you weren't?


Banksy recently left four works in Detroit. One was "removed" by a non-profit gallery, one was destroyed during attempted removal and one was power-washed away by a building owner (ouch). 

The lone remaining painting is of a cartoon rat balancing on a tight rope (which is really a rusted old chain that hangs there.) The Tightrope Rat has become a favorite for Banksy fans and undoubtedly an arts destination since the exact location is now well publicized for visitors.


The "preservation" of the "Packard Plant Mural" has created an uproar with the arts world (once again) dividing on each side of the crumbling graffiti splattered wall.  The gallery that removed the painting from the original site has had to hide the art after receiving numerous threats. The mural's removal touched off an impassioned debate about the meaning, legality and ownership of graffiti art. It's a valid question. Once the artist walks off... who does it belong to? The building owner, the city, whomever finds it and claims it?

In a recent and rare interview Banksy gives his thoughts on permanence of graffiti art.

"Graffiti isn't meant to last forever.... I've always been uncomfortable with the way galleries put things on a pedestal. I think art should be a two-way conversation, not a lecture from behind glass. I'd like to say I'm politically motivated but the reality is I'm just far too lazy for capitalism. If Banksy has become a brand, then it's a brand that doesn't believe in itself. There's probably a contradiction in hiding your face while shooting off your mouth. But I don't think it's terminal."

So according to Banksy, anything that happens to the art he leaves behind - whether it is enshrined on site as an altar to the gods of graffiti or destroyed by random or intentional "accident" is all a part of the dialog with the art. Just don't let the galleries put it behind glass.

Some additional off topic thoughts on Banksy:
For someone who makes a mockery of being high profile and tries to hide his identity Banksy has been garnering quite the share of publicity. In the last decade, Banksy's name has appeared in more than 720 New York Times articles. This year, Banksy was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People, and "Exit Through the Gift Shop" - a self-documentary, opened to gushy reviews and to date has  grossed more than $1 million in only 31 theaters." 

Does he deserve all the attention? The innovativeness of some of his thumb his nose at art and society antics are definitely creative. Banksy once printed counterfeit currency in London, replacing the Queen's head for that of Princess Diana's. Where the bill would normally read "Bank of England" he printed "Banksy of England." In disguise, armed with a hammer and nail, he hung re-imaginings of the Mona Lisa inside the Louvre. His escapades go on and on. It's really quite fun following his mad hatter dance in the news.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100529/ENT05/5290305/Gallery-that-took-Banksy-mural-puts-it-in-hiding

http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/detroit/index.ssf/2010/05/banksy_bombs_detroit_sorting_t.html
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/drawn-from-the-shadows-wanted-man-comes-out-to-play-20100528-wlcx.html

DAMage Report - The Artistic Glass Ceiling

Show postponed until tomorrow - same place, time, topic. Gives y'all time for.... HOMEWORK!!! (Evil laugh) Tell me your five favorite female artists - in any genre... and if you don't know of five - FIND some. Seriously.


____________________
We tend to think of gender discrimination as something that is reflected mostly in the corporate world, or even an issue that is no longer that much of a problem. The days of female artists being repressed and unrecognized are over... right? Wrong. Truth is that women artists are still way the hell down on the art totem pole - in all the genres of art. 


"...half of trained artists in the U.S. are female, but women make up only two percent of the artists featured at the National Gallery of Art and seven percent at the National Portrait Gallery."  The imbalance isn't just historical though.  "At the Hirshhorn Museum, which specializes in contemporary art, women are five percent of featured artists."
Some hard cold glass facts from the 90's thru current day:

•  There have been only eleven female winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature over the last 100-plus years
• In 2008, women comprised only 16% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films
• In 2000, of 18 modern-dance choreographers who received grants from the National Endowment for the Arts, 13 were men. The men received a typical grant of $10,000; the women $5,000
• In 53 weeks of the New York Times Book Review in 2002-03, out of 807 books reviewed, only 28% were authored by women. 
• 51.2% of all artists in the U.S. are women 
• 59% of Ph.D.s in Fine Arts go to women.
• 66.5% of Ph.D.s in Art History go to women.
• 59% of trained artists and art historians are women.
• 33% of art faculty are women.
• 5% of works in museums are by women.
• 17% of works in galleries are by women.
• 26% of artists reviewed in art periodicals are women.
• Women artists' income is 30% that of male artists'.
• 30% of Guggenheim grants go to women.
• 25% of $25,000 NEA grants go to women.

The numbers go on and on and on.... except maybe in basket weaving, similar numbers are reflected in all areas of the arts as well as in all areas of arts grants and support. Obviously by the number of women artists getting degrees in the arts, there are a large percentage of dedicated women artists in our society. Oh, and by the way - if you throw race into the mix, for example black female authors or painters and the numbers completely nosedive. 

These statistics demand some hard questions. Is it because of what women paint, write, how they create? Does gender choices in subject matter affect "acceptability" or popularity?
Are they less talented in the arts than their male counterparts? 
What could possibly account for a continued bias in male versus female created art?


Now to be fair, if the majority of women are painting babies, puppies and ballet dancers and flowers - yeah, they're not going to get the gallery space and recognition of male artists who are painting contemporary art or even landscapes. Cute and art don't necessarily mix in the fine art world. But But we're not talking hobby artists - we're looking at the serious artists who are actively making a living, or trying to, with their art. They are educated artists, passionately pursuing their craft. So why can't they get equal recognition? 


Jerry Saltz said, while criticizing MoMa for it's lack of representation of female artists in its collection: "Art should be bought on merit, not the sex of the artist. The sex of the artist is the last thing on my mind when I'm looking at good art."  To be fair, MoMa has heard the outcry over the past decade and is featuring a major exhibition of female photographers, as well as releasing a book this month, "Modern Woman," about women artists. http://www.artbook.com/9780870707711.html
Glad to know someone is taking the problem seriously.


If you think this is all hyperbole and female hysteria... name five nationally recognized female visual artists in the United States. The majority of people will probably name Georgia O'Keefe, maybe even Frida Kahlo (a Mexican artist) if they remember any female artists at all... but beyond that... not so much unless they happen to follow particular female artists works. It certainly doesn't come from encountering it in school or mainstream media. 
REF Story: http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/05/17/female_filmmakers/


Top 50 Female Visual Artists According to Someone: http://www.faqs.org/shareranks/811,50-Female-Visual-Artists

Lucy Hunnicutt - Art Shown in Story: http://www.southernbreeze.net/tour152.htm

BOOK GIVE AWAY: Author Teresa Roberts Logan is sending me an extra copy of her illustrated book "The Older i Get, The Less i Care" (you can find out more here: http://www.laughingredhead.com/links.html. Sooooo - in keeping with celebrating women artists, i'll be giving away a copy today on the DAMage Report on Hollywood Outlaw Radio at 2pm PST/5pm EST (http://www.horadio.com). You gotta listen to find out how to win it. I also recommend adding the DAMage Report facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/thedamagereport

DAMage Report - Faking It

One of the more popular and memorable stories I did earlier this year included mention of a performance art piece called "The Rape Tunnel." (http://lakotadamagereport.blogspot.com/2010/01/wtfart-line-between-snake-oil-and-art.html)

It turns out that the concept was a hoax designed to generate dialog. Not about rape but about contemporary art. Now art should generate dialog, but what about non-art or art that isn't. Does this make the hoax itself art? Or just viral marketing?

It interesting that psychologists had a field day with this one.
The artist, the galleries, the project were all fictional. But it is interesting to note that for a cursory check the designers of this hoax had photos online of the artist, of the tunnel and the multiple stories published about the topic lent it immediate validity... at least for the short term. (On a side note - it is also interesting that when doing research we tend to rely maybe a bit too heavily on google to find our facts, not taking in account lag time for links to related stories. If google finds it, it must be real, right?)

Hoaxes and art are age old partners.

In 1998, William Boyd published a biography about american artist Nat Tate. Gore Vidal, John Richardson (Picasso's biographer), and David Bowie all participated in the elaborate ruse. One of the participants said "We were very amused that people kept saying 'Yes, I've heard of him'. There is a willingness not to appear foolish." The entire project was apparently a satire aimed at poking fun at the New York art scene.

Another was the abstract artist phenomenon Marla Olmstead - a four year old who created a media frenzy in the art world. Turns out daddy may have given her a little bit of help.

This one is one of my favorites, dating from 1064: "previously unknown avant-garde French artist Pierre Brassau exhibited at an art show in Goteborg, Sweden. Art critics from Swedish papers praised the works. Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer." Pierre was a chimp.

Oh and that blood art with the girl aborting herself: "Aliza Shvarts, a Yale art student, proclaimed she'd been working on a project by repeatedly impregnating herself, self-aborting, and then planned to encase the remnants of the abortions in a glass cube as "art." It made the blog rounds after being reported in the Yale student newspaper, and then made the jump to the mainstream media before she admitted the project was "creative fiction" intended to stir debate."

The excuse "used to create debate or dialog" seems to be the safety net everyone is using with these hoaxes. And what exactly is the difference between a lie and a hoax? If you lie while laughing behind your hand, it's a hoax? Granted, some media such as the Onion or paraody shows play off the fictional but then they don't pretend that what they are serving up is real. The need for an artist and for media to create "stories" or promotional opportunities is a Pandora's box. Don't get me wrong - I have a great sense of humor and i love a practical joke. However, as a society, if we are lied to enough, we become jaded and disbelieving, to the point where we may dismiss without thought anything that falls outside the "normal/acceptable" box. True in life and true in art, the lessons of the boy who cried wolf (also know as balloon boy) need to be tattooed on the heads of some idiots.

So can i lose the nickname "Rape Tunnel" Phillips now?

Ref Stories: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2009/09/about_that_rape_tunnel_did_art.php
and just for fun:
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2009/09/artlurker_explains_rape_tunnel.php
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/01/im_building_a_rape_tunnel.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/enter-at-your-own-risk-rape-tunnel-turns-art-hoax/

Museum of Art Hoaxes: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/display/category/art/

DAMage Report Today on Hollywood Outlaw Radio (horadio.com) at 2pm PST/5pm EST