Facing The Lack of Diversity in Photography and The Arts

This discussion has evolved into one of those we can safely agree to disagree on various points.

The truth is that it is too complex of an issue for anyone to fully understand. If enough of us did, all the ills if the world would have been solved already.

There is no one truth, problem, or solution. Our personal experiences are no more than anecdotal instances that support a particular view.

We should all weigh our words carefully before commenting. What was true to my experience is not true to someone else's. Wether intended or not it does come across as insulting.

I come from a dirt poor Mexican family. My parents did not exceed an elementary education. They knew they wanted better for their children. All but one of my siblings are successful professionals.

I am also a highly decorated high school teacher. I have taught in the inner city as well as in the suburbs. Among other things, I also hold in degree in ethnic studies. My wife is a very successful doctor.

My entire existence has very firm footing in many worlds. I know the issue to be too complex for anyone to be able to digest and articulate wholly.

I invite you all to politely agree or disagree without demeaning anyone's existence.
 
I am sorry. I try not to be too offensive in my commentary, but what you said is rubbish. Totally utterly . . . it's so bad that "it's not even wrong" ! !

Under the law, there is "equal opportunity". In reality, in society, the concept of "equal opportunity" does not exist equally for everyone in our (USA) society.


EDIT: spend some time teaching or assisting in a very poor public school. Then come back and tell me that every little kid in that school has the same living environment and social opportunities that you and I had. Not even close to being correct on that.


I don't agree with the spirit of your post, though it does make a point. In America, everyone does have equal opportunity, more or less. That doesn't mean everyone is equal, except in the eyes of the law. There are many people who are smarter than me, or stronger, or harder workers. There is no way to "level the field", I am what I am, and others are what they are.

Equality isn't necessarily something which comes from outside yourself. In America, if I want to be a doctor, a lawyer, or an artist, no one can stop me from doing these things but myself. It is true that pursuing one's dreams is harder for some than it is for others, but that's the way things are, and the way things have always been. But those who buck the trend inspire others to do it as well.

The borders between societies, races, and classes exist, but they exist mainly in people's minds. We all know countless examples of people who have, from the bottom of society, made it all the way to the top.

I myself come from an "economically-disadvantaged" background. But I have never let that hold me back. No one helped me with my education, I paid for it myself. I took no art classes when I was a student, I love art simply for what it is.

I think schools should make art available for everyone to appreciate, but if minorities want to make it to the boardrooms or to "the 1%", they had better study something other than art.
 
Thank you Bill.

My sibling, wife, and I are examples of what is suppose to happen. None of us did it alone or by ourselves. We all had lots of very caring people along the way to guide us though our journey (as well as others that did not see the potential, didn't care to help, was not there problem, ...)

The world would be very different if we all did our part in looking out for our fellow man!

If
 
My last post raised the issue of developing class-consciousness in North America. I attributed this to the increased discussion of financial (and consequent social and life-style) inequality, and to last year’s manifestation known as the “Occupy” movement. It is clear from the discussion in this thread that the issue is alive among members of this forum. When did you become aware of this phenomenon?
As a relatively privileged WASP male, whose career allowed me to move in international circles far beyond my personal means (I was a career diplomat, now retired), I have only recently felt aware of the gap between my own circumstances and those dubbed “Davos men”; how much more so for others who lacked my opportunities. That being said, the opportunity to experience art, however defined, is readily available in our western societies. The ability to enter the appreciative, as opposed to the creative, side is relatively open to those with the desire. I think it should also be noted that artistic appreciation is probably in as short supply among the presumed privileged as among others.
All my life, and, specifically for the US, the first time I visited the country in 1981. One of my great-great-grandfathers was a very rich man who lost all his money. That is to say, all but the bare necessities: the way you could lose your money in the 19th century, when there was virtually nothing in the way of a safety net, and still less in the way of regulation. His daughter, my great-grandmother, went from being a rich girl to a poor girl. She joined the Communist Party in 1917.

Her children, the 'political aunts' (and my grandmother) were on the hard left of the Labour Party. My father started out on the left of the Conservative Party and is now, at 85, on the right (as is my brother). I joined the Young Liberals in 1966 and was a liberal until the present shower (Clegg and his ilk) came in. Now, I suppose you could say I was on the right of the Labour Party, but not as far right as Blair and his chums. Then again, it's always more nuanced than 'left' and 'right'. My father, for example, despite his right-wing views, believes that unions are essential and that it would be madness to dismantle the National Health Service.

People make the mistake of equating (British) Conservatives with Republicans and Labour with Democrats. That's not true. Democrats are pretty much like the left of the Conservative Party, and Republicans are more like the far right of the same party. There is no mainstream left-wing party in the United States; at least, not one that would be recognizable to the average European.

Incidentally, I'm married to an American (since 1982) and lived in the USA from 1987 to 1992, when we both decided we preferred to live in Europe.

Cheers,

R.
 
here's the way art works: without patrons, da vinci, raphael, michaelangelo, picasso, etc., would not have existed as artists. that is the way it was, the way it is, the way it will be. art is not democratic.

Actually, its not the way it is. The patronage system that employed large numbers of artists in the Renaissance/early modern period has disappeared. The concept of the 'starving artist' is recent, there was no such thing before the 19th Century.

Art, in many ways, was more 'democratic' in the past. While most people could not afford to buy art, art did appeal to ordinary people in the past to a much greater degree than it does in todays world, where far more people can afford art, but few actually buy.

Art today is largely irrelevant to the lives of modern people. Rather than being a part of, and a reflection of, the wider culture, art today strives to be obscure, opaque, incomprehensible. You didn't need a PhD to understand the work of Michelangelo or DaVinci; they made art about things that most people cared about and understood.

Today's artists and the industry that surrounds them (galleries, museums, publishers, etc) have turned their backs on the wider culture. In return, the wider culture had walked away from art.
 
The comment on 'art' not equalling 'art world' I consider a very valid one. I've seen great things made by people, things that will never be on display anywhere. Great photography that only lives online, or in books. Live performances that are witnessed by many, in the streets and not in a theatre.

Also, I agree with Randy's comment on students often not being able to think and phrase coherently. As a (former) high school teacher I have found this to be true on many occasions. I try to interest my teenage kids in written and televised interviews, debates, etc and invite them to participate in conversations that involve reasoning. Well-spokenness, voiced self-esteem and a cared-for appearance go a long way, even if there is little knowledge of fundamental or current affairs.

With regards to the class people are from, an anecdote: In my childhood, I was a boy scout and a such read Baden-Powell's 'Scouting for boys'. One thing that always stuck with me was his comment on people's shoes. He wrote: "When encountering people, always be aware of their shoes. Because many people invest in new or fancy clothes for occasions but wear the shoes they already owned with them since shoes are often expensive. Shoes tell what people they really are." All my life I have found this to be true, although not always. One of the boy scout leaders would always arrive in old clothes and shoes but I could instantly tell that they had been expensive when bought new.

Nowadays I still often buy shoes in second-hand stores for next-to-nothing money, that sometimes even look worn but were expensive when bought new. Same for trousers and shirts. I make sure the shoes and clothes fit perfectly. Thing is, people you encounter cannot tell that it wasn't you that wore those clothes since new, but they often do recognize expensive quality. I have suits that make me look like a millionaire but set me back fifty bucks only. This has never let me down.

Good dress, eloquence and a friendly but firm demeanor all can come cheap and can get people a long way.

Here's hoping this is of use to anybody.
 
There is no mainstream left-wing party in the United States; at least, not one that would be recognizable to the average European.

That's correct at least according to one poll that said 20% of US voters consider themselves Liberals. And the US Liberals can't be mainstream because they all live in either California cities or near or New York city or near, they just have lots of clout.
 
chris, the patrons are still there. they just dress differently ... 🙂



Here's my experience as a fulltime professional artist: I have had patrons help me financially by buying me gear or giving me gifts of money. My Nikon scanner, my Crown Victoria, one of my big Epson printers, and several smaller items came to me that way. The person who bought me the car also gave me the money to take my trip to New Mexico last year.

I truly appreciate all of that, which has made it possible for me to do a lot of my work, and has helped with life in general (the Crown Vic, for example...need a good car to carry on normal life where I live). Still, there do not seem to be the kind of patrons that men like Michelangelo had, the patrons who provide their artists with a regular, continuous income....basically a fulltime job.

Without that kind of support, life for an artist like me is always precarious. I never know if I'll have the rent for next month, or when I can pay my bills. Sometimes I have a lot of money, if i have sold a lot of stuff or gotten a lot of commercial work recently. Other times, it is a real struggle. I save money from the good times to cover the bad times, but sometimes the money runs out too soon.

That is true for most artists today, and it makes the difference between the lives of artists in the past, and those of us today who make art our life's work.
 
I don't agree with the spirit of your post, though it does make a point. In America, everyone does have equal opportunity, more or less. That doesn't mean everyone is equal, except in the eyes of the law. There are many people who are smarter than me, or stronger, or harder workers. There is no way to "level the field", I am what I am, and others are what they are.

Equality isn't necessarily something which comes from outside yourself. In America, if I want to be a doctor, a lawyer, or an artist, no one can stop me from doing these things but myself. It is true that pursuing one's dreams is harder for some than it is for others, but that's the way things are, and the way things have always been. But those who buck the trend inspire others to do it as well.

The borders between societies, races, and classes exist, but they exist mainly in people's minds. We all know countless examples of people who have, from the bottom of society, made it all the way to the top.

I myself come from an "economically-disadvantaged" background. But I have never let that hold me back. No one helped me with my education, I paid for it myself. I took no art classes when I was a student, I love art simply for what it is.

I think schools should make art available for everyone to appreciate, but if minorities want to make it to the boardrooms or to "the 1%", they had better study something other than art.

I understand your points. But let me highlight that I was not referring to "equality" (of people). I referred to "equal opportunity", which simply does not exist for everyone in our society.
Of course some people overcome some obstacles and disadvantages (most of us did); but of course that ignores the child buried in a life of unsolvable social problems, who will likely become yet another of everyone's "social problems".

This veers far from the original thread topic, but I was responding at the time some other comment about "Land of Opportunity" or "Make it on Your Own" or something I've forgotten now. It also didn't help any with that other guy who thought tests biased toward Whites wasn't a bad idea.

Okay . . . I'm dropping out of this and going into my "Read Only" mode.
 
ART is not the equivalent of the ART WORLD,

This is well said. Indeed, I question the whole discussion. What do we mean when we say Art? From the context of the quotes in the original post, it is clear that the discussion was originally centered around the visual arts, and most importantly visual arts that can be placed, shown and sold in museums that cater to a mostly white audience.

Lets draw back and look at the Arts in a broader perspective, and include the performance arts. I hope no one here is seriously going to argue that women are always under represented in the performance arts (If you look at the ballet world for example, the challenge if finding good male dancers while every position open for women has 10 talented dancers competing for it (at least)). Likewise, blacks play a leading role in Jazz music.. and if we broaden the performing arts to more popular arts, in the Blues and Hip Hop as well. Likewise, Latin music has gained enormous cross over appeal in the last few years.

Now, I suspect (Though I am far less familiar with the minorities in popular visual art) that they have their own types of visual arts that remain essentially a niche inside their cultural community. I have never gone into a home yet, white, black, Hispanic or other that didn't have some sort of art displayed, often reflective of their cultural background.

So this brings up the final thought. Are we trying to bring minorities into the arts to save the arts, or to reshape the culture of the minorities?

Mind you, I say this as a member of the Irish Diaspora (my parents were immigrants to America) who has often felt his native culture was dismissed by others. Even in the wake of River Dance, I still hear people talk about how all Irish Music sounds the same... or people "celebrating Irish Culture" by reducing it to U2 (Which while immensely talented, is really an adaptation of American/British culture). I suspect similar experiences are felt by people who are more clearly in minority groups than I am... indeed probably much more intensely since they can't blend in.

--
Bill
 
1) Actually, its not the way it is. The patronage system that employed large numbers of artists in the Renaissance/early modern period has disappeared. The concept of the 'starving artist' is recent, there was no such thing before the 19th Century.

2) Art, in many ways, was more 'democratic' in the past. While most people could not afford to buy art, art did appeal to ordinary people in the past to a much greater degree than it does in todays world, where far more people can afford art, but few actually buy.

3) Art today is largely irrelevant to the lives of modern people. Rather than being a part of, and a reflection of, the wider culture, art today strives to be obscure, opaque, incomprehensible. You didn't need a PhD to understand the work of Michelangelo or DaVinci; they made art about things that most people cared about and understood.

4) Today's artists and the industry that surrounds them (galleries, museums, publishers, etc) have turned their backs on the wider culture. In return, the wider culture had walked away from art.

Dear Chris, I may not be a regular poster but always have read your comments and contributions with lots of interest.
However, I cannot agree with some of the points you're making.

1) Though the concept of the "suffering artist" is something from 19th century romanticism, that doesn't mean that starving artists didn't exist in the centuries before. Casanova's diaries come to mind and even Goya's last days in France. And these are just two of the famous ones.

2) If democratic means "participated or liked by", I can understand what you mean, but I still don't see the difference with today's popular art forms. Art for art's sake is as decimononic as your suffering artist and so is separating the means from the end which was intimately connected in religious art, for example.

3) Obscure and incomprehesible art is just a reminiscence of early 20th century vangardist art forms, in itself something like a "baroque revival", but in the meantime popular/pop art has come a long way. Don't get me wrong, I get equally bored about most of the newest "street art" as I get dissappointed with the latest neoconceptualist ectoplasm. But you cannot say that Jeff Koons is opaque and incomprehensible (apart form the succes he got) And also, luckily, we've got Tom Waits and Roberto Bolaño or Don DeLillo who perhaps ain't Lady Gaga, but get more than minority praise and sales.

4) I would agree on this if the statement weren't too general. Popular culture sure has turned its back to "official" art forms. But hasn't it always been like that? Usually it's the "higher" culture that starts taking the blood from below (like 19th century literature and classical music, folk tales etc.) Sooner or later both start dancing and no one knows who's first to strangle the other (though I'd put my money on the industry).

Cheers and best of luck,

Nescio
 
Beeing not native english speaker I have fear my contribution wouldn't put my opinions in a nutshell. That's why I'm still in read-only-mode. But I need to mention how greatly I enjoy this socio-cultural discussion. The situation in EU is different than in the US in a sort. But the same basic problems.

Thanks for the profound post and: Keep on talking!
 
The comparison between Renaissance Artist and modern artists is not valid. First in the middle ages and the Renaissance started in the middle ages an artist was a craftsman this view didn't change until the end of the 18th century. The access to art was much more open then it is today Church paintings go to church see art. Until the 19th century there simply was no such thing as galleries or artist as pure artists. Many artist were starving because they fell out of favor with their patrons church and other. Or some like Rembrandt couldn't handle money, thoug he did not starve to death. The starving artist as a chlichee is as Chris said an invention of the 19th century and one that pisses off a lot of artist because politicians and some people name it as a reason not to pay or to pay very little to artist. "You're an artist you work for art and not for money, money is beneath you."

It's also true that art does not equal art world, but unfortunately your merits as an artist are often not seen in terms of the quality of your work but in how much money you make and where you have exhibited your work. The money thing is not limited to art.
 
a patron is a patron is a patron, whether today or during the renaissance, whether the roman church or a rich noble or wall street whiz.

That's not true, the church was not a patron in modern terms the church was more of an employer than a patron. The artist had to work for the church he created the paintings for the church or some Bishop who wanted to have a naked person above his bed in the Vatican. The paintings commisioned by the church or rich families were often the results of precise wishes, down to every person and leaf depicted in the painting. Those wishes were often written down in contracts. So not much creative freedom, today's patrons give the artist a lot more freedom (most of the time)

A patron in a modern sense comes closer to a sponsor than a employer wouldn't you say.
 
Interesting thread...the 'minority' advocates in the OP's post are all encouraging 'remedial' action in an entirely incoherent manner. The responders, of which the vast majority are white males, are wringing their hands providing equally incoherent responses. Not that it matters, of course... Art will live and prosper.
 
Interesting thread...the 'minority' advocates in the OP's post are all encouraging 'remedial' action in an entirely incoherent manner. The responders, of which the vast majority are white males, are wringing their hands providing equally incoherent responses. Not that it matters, of course... Art will live and prosper.
Incoherent? In suggesting that today, art is often a luxury produced not just for the financially overprivileged, but also by the financially overprivileged? As compared with the pre-19th century view of the artist as craftsman? What would you regard as coherent?

Cheers,

R.
 
Back
Top Bottom