[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] the political economy of patronage



On 6/5/02 at 9:43 PM, under the radar <analog_life@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > I think MS performers should be compensated in the same way other
> > > artists have been supported, through arts patronage.

> > this is an interesting idea but if you look back to arts patronage
> > you'll see that there are always 'strings' attached to a supply of
> > money (aka 'support'):

> Agreed, but this is the case of any artist who begins the process of
> being compensated for her/his work. The  very process of accepting
> money, goods, services or  status in some way  will have an impact on
> your art.
> 
> > money comes with certain 'expectations'...
> 
> It always does. Even if an artist is given "free reign" to do what
> she/he wants, the process of compensation always has an impact. I
> think for the most artists doing vital work (in any genre or media)
> create something in hopes of some kind of recognition, or
> compensation, after the process of creation is already over. If it's
> the reverse, a work of art is already inextricably tied to the
> compensation. It becomes tainted by the the patron.

(Sorry if I've misattributed some of the above to 'under the radar'...)

I've been reading this thread with great interest, yet it seems folks
are hestitant to connect the production of works of art to our being in
a society. Perhaps this is due to everyone's feelings, articulate or
otherwise, about Capitalism as not the best way of organizing society.
But the opposite, that an artist can somehow work isolated (or immune)
to the society that surrounds him/her, strikes me as pure mystification.

The question of patronage in particular is very interesting.
Contemporary patronage is not at all the same as the legendary patronage
of Baroque Italy in the 16-17th centuries. Contemporary patronage and
"non-profit cultural institutions" exist completely surrounded by the
mechanics of Global Capitalism and have had to make major adjustments
simply to survive.

There's plenty written about this (cf Raymond Williams), but the most
vivid example I can cite was a conversation with a member of the Baruch
family, who sits on the board of the Metropolitan Opera. His comment:
"In the past (ie the 50's), you know, the Met could simply go to Mrs.
Rockfeller and ask her to write a check to cover the Met's deficit. That
doesn't happen anymore."

Of course now the Met is involved with subscriptions, gala parties,
merchandising and advertizing: mini-upscale versions of the stuff that
capitalist media conglomerates pioneered. And Mr. Baruch is, of course,
on the board of Viacom... And the Rockefellers are still on the board
too, but their checks couldn't cover the Met's budget these days.

(I few months after I spoke with him, I got a mailing from the Met for
subscription tickets to their production of Wagner's _Ring Cycle_. I
wanted the cheapest Family Circle seats, which totalled to less than the
"suggested contribution" of $80. I didn't include the contribution and
naturally, the Met wasn't able to accommodate my request for seats!)

In my view, there's really nowhere to run under Capitalism, not even
Anarchism. It's a seamless environment. So on the one hand, we should be
trying on a small level to create formations that increase cultural
diversity, but on a large level, work to modify the big monkey on our
backs.

(While on the subject Anarchism, I should point out that there is a
complex debate about the SIZE of economic formations. Most folks you
talk to immediately like the "small is beautiful" idea of Anarchist
organization. But I'm not sure that small, decentralized production of
computer chips, for example, (something near and dear to our hearts) is
the best way of organizing the production of this technology given how
polluting it is.)

The value of artistic production of any type and scale is whether it
increases the cultural possibilities for our global community. The
distinction between "art" and "entertainment" is pretty irrelevant. I'd
judge cultural production on the basis of how much it affects me (pos.
or neg.), instead. So the tired old 20th century notion of "new forms in
art" isn't half as interesting to me as new societal circumstances under
which cultural production can thrive.

There hasn't been much talk about State funding for culture on the list.
I'd be interested in some of the European list members take on the
subject. The U.S. has a pretty interesting history that's not well
remembered. A paean to the NEA of the 70's can be found in:

Michael Brenson "Visonaries and Outcasts: The NEA, Congress and the
Place of the Visual Artist in America"

Things I remember personally were the wonderful Media Arts Centers in
New York State and the CETA artist program. Anyone remember having a
Federally funded job at the Mudd Club or Nam June Paik on the government
payroll?

Anyway, what personal forms of expression create more cultural
possibilities? Who can know what cultural forms we'll need to survive in
the future? That's what I'm for.

(Sorry I couldn't contribute to bufferFuct, I've been moving. Kim,
please do another soon!)

-Tad