I don't know if it's my computer or not, but if you can only see half of the video image, go here.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
I stumbled on this article while reading Amy Stein's blog. If you don't already, definitely follow her blog. I'll let you read the excerpt (grabbed from Amy Stein again). This isn't news to us artists, but it may be revelatory to some:
"The fact is that the arts foster innovation. We've just published a study that shows that almost all Nobel Laureates in the sciences actively engage in arts as adults. They are twenty-five times as likely as the average scientist to sing, dance, or act; seventeen times as likely to be a visual artist; twelve times more likely to write poetry and literature; eight time more likely to do woodworking or some other craft; four times as likely to be a musician; and twice as likely to be a photographer. Many connect their art to their scientific ability with some riff on Nobel prizewinning physicist Max Planck words: "The creative scientist needs an artistic imagination."
Bottom line: Successful scientists and inventors are artistic people. Hobble the arts and you hobble innovation. It's a lesson our legislators need to learn. So feel free to cut and paste this column into a letter to your senators and congressman, as well as your school representatives, or simply send them a link to this column. One way or another, if we as a society wish to cultivate creativity, the arts MUST be part of the equation!"
A little devil's advocate of my own to add: the United States is among the worst of the industrialized countries when it comes to arts funding. So low, it ought to be quite embarrassing to our leaders. On the flip side, though, it seems like the best work gets made in times of economic turmoil, when artists stand little chance of making any money from their work. Music is a good example of this: in the 50s and early 60s, even established "star" musicians made very little money. Think of the movie "Walk The Line" when Johnny Cash, Elvis, et al were on tour in their cars, taking turns driving. When music wasn't a way to get rich, we got artists who routinely changed the landscape of their art form completely. Then, the Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc., came along and became millionaires. Since then, the advances or changes in music have been minimal. And, since it seems like a decent get-rich-quick scheme, the radio is flooded with a bunch of boring clones of whatever some executive thinks is the "hip" sound at the moment.
When the economy is good, everyone, artists included, get comfortable. When art sells, many artists will produce what they think will sell. Not because they are morally weak; income is nice, and it's hard to turn down. But we are in an exciting, scary, fascinating, scary time right now. Artists are at the back of the "expectation of livable income" line. Which means some will give up. The rest of us, who HAVE to make art in order to breathe, will create art that really matters to us. With no reason to think there is any money to be made, artists will take bigger risks, therefore producing better art. Unless my powers of prediction are failing me, the visual art, music, and literature that will be born in the next couple years will be the best we've seen in a generation. And just maybe, a handful of us will forever change the way music, literature, visual art, theater is experienced.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
My family and I moved to Grand Rapids a couple years ago. Long story about love and loss, and the desire for a major change. Western Michigan is beautiful pretty much year-round, but it is certainly a challenge for a creative person to make a reasonable living here. Luckily the cost of living is low.
The same time we moved to Grand Rapids, my drummer/friend/fellow photographer moved to New York City and holed up in a small apartment in Brooklyn. He would fly back to Chicago when we had a show to play...finally it was about time we reciprocated. And from the moment we got off the plane, I was in love with that city. The energy, the people, the dirt, the garbage...it's a photographer/artist's dream city. And New York offers far more opportunity for a variety of paying photo gigs. If the housing market was better, I'd be blogging from the back of a moving truck right now. Trying to figure out how to get photo gigs there that will cover the travel involved. Any ideas?
None of this is to say that I don't like where I live now, just that I (and didn't know until it was too late) am a New York City kind of person. Life is not handed to you; it's what you make it despite all the things conspiring against you. That struggle is what makes life interesting. Now, here in Grand Rapids, starting this business from absolutely nothing, I need to be meeting people and finding the photography jobs that excite me (like shooting musicians, artists, and interesting [or interesting-looking] people) . I know they're here; they're just maybe a little harder to find. Do you know anyone looking for that kind of shooter? Send them my way.