The Largest Last Supper

According to this study, food portion sizes grew by some 69% in paintings of the Last Supper over the centuries. It seems that super-sizing is not a recent phenomenon, but a trend over millenia.

Of course, as I just wrote the author of the study, the growth in portion sizes depicted in those paintings could be as reflective of changes in aesthetics of those painters over the centuries, as in portion size per se (although doubtless portion sizes did grow). Medieval painters like Duccio above produced stylized expressions of austere ascenticism, whereas Renaissance painters like Titian were worldly, out-and-out sensualists. Paralleling this evolution, the mastery of visual perspective enabled more accurate depictions of the sheer physicality of things.

Interesting that as portion sizes grew over the centuries, halo sizes shrank. In the Medieval paintings, the halos look like huge plates you could eat out of.

J. W. Waterhouse

Last week we went to the J.W. Waterhouse exhibit, at the Musee des Beaux Arts here in Montreal – a huge, travelling retrospective that has done much to revive his work in the public eye.  I highly recommend this show, which runs till the end of this week. In all, we spent about two and a half hours enjoying the work of this British 19th C. master.

The renewed fascination with this work suggests something afoot in the zeitgeist, a return of interest in pictorial representation and in artistic interpretations of our mythological and religious past. It also, I daresay, partakes of the decadence of our own peculiar time.  All those thinly clad nymphs and cherubs rendered by Waterhouse and others served as softcore porn for a certain class of wealthy, repressed Victorian gentlemen. (The above doesn't quite serve as an example; you would have to go to the show to see what I mean!) His repetitive use of one, idealized model -- whose svelte figure conforms more closely to today's standards of beauty than say the women of Rubens or Renoir -- served as both his signature and to trivialize him. Nevertheless, paintings like The Lady of Shalott, above, are luminous masterpieces.

One can see why the post-WWI avant guarde -- a movement I very much appreciate, actually -- were so strenuous in their denunciations of this kind of work: would hate break the news to them today, but most of their own work doesn’t hold a candle to it.

For those who want to view and learn more about Waterhouse's art, check out this highly informative virtual tour put on by the curator.

Starving Artists' Report

Just got this from the League of Canadian Poets. I wonder if Hill Strategies employed artists to do their surveys for them? Wouldn't have skewed the results. I remember working for Environics Research Group many years ago, surrounded by a motely crew of actors, writers, artists, etc.., all manning the phones for near minimum wage, of course.

New report reveals 10 key facts about the working lives of artists in Canada

February 4, 2008

A Statistical Profile of Artists in Canada Based on the 2006 Census, the 26th report in the Statistical Insights on the Arts series from Hill Strategies Research, shows that there are 140,000 artists in Canada who spent more time at their art than at any other occupation in May 2006. Artists include actors, choreographers, craftspeople, composers, conductors, dancers, directors, musicians, producers, singers and visual artists.

The number of artists is slightly larger than the number of Canadians directly employed in the automotive industry (135,000).

The report also notes that the broader cultural sector has about 609,000 workers and comprises 3.3% of the overall labour force in Canada. One in every 30 people in Canada has a cultural occupation.This is about double the level of employment in the forestry sector in Canada (300,000) and more than double the level of employment in Canadian banks (257,000).

The report highlights 10 key facts about artists in Canada:

1. The average earnings of artists are very low.

• The average earnings of artists are $22,700, compared with an average of $36,300 for all Canadian workers.
• The gap between artists' average earnings and overall labour force earnings is 37%.
• To bridge the earnings gap and bring the average earnings of artists up to the same level as the overall labour force would require an additional $1.9 billion in earnings for artists.
• The average earnings of artists are only 9% higher than Statistics Canada's low-income cutoff for a single person living in a community of 500,000 people or more ($20,800).
• 62% of artists earn less than $20,000, compared with 41% of the overall labour force.
• Six of the nine arts occupations have average earnings that are less than Statistics Canada's low-income cutoff for a single person living in a community of 500,000 people or more ($20,800).

2. A typical artist in Canada earns less than half the typical earnings of all Canadian workers.

Note: The median is a measure of the earnings of a "typical" worker in various occupations. Half of individuals have earnings that are less than the median value, while the other half has earnings greater than the median.

• For artists, median earnings are only $12,900.
• A typical artist in Canada earns less than half the typical earnings of all Canadian workers (median earnings of $26,900).
• A typical artist, on their own, lives in a situation of extreme low income: the median earnings of artists are 38% below the low-income cutoff for larger urban areas ($20,800).
• In six arts occupations, median earnings are less than or about equal to $10,000. This means that a typical actor, artisan, dancer, musician or singer, other performer or visual artist earns only about $10,000 or less.

3. Artists' earnings decreased, even before the current recession.

• Between 1990 and 2005, the average earnings of artists decreased by 11% (after adjusting for inflation).
• In the overall labour force, average earnings grew by 9% during the same timeframe (after adjusting for inflation).
• The 11% decrease in the average earnings of artists between 1990 and 2005 is due to a 14% decrease between 2000 and 2005, after adjusting for inflation. Even without an inflation adjustment, artists' average earnings decreased by 3% between 2000 and 2005.
• All nine arts occupations saw substantial decreases in average earnings between 2000 and 2005, which contributed to a decrease for all nine occupations over the longer timeframe (1990 to 2005).
• The earnings gap between artists and the overall labour force increased from 23% in 1990 to 37% in 2005.

4. There are more female than male artists, yet women artists earn much less than men.

• The 74,000 female artists represent 53% of artists. In the overall labour force, 48% of workers are women.
• On average, female artists earn $19,200, 28% less than the average earnings of male artists ($26,700).

5. Aboriginal and visible minority artists have particularly low earnings.

• Aboriginal artists have particularly low average earnings ($15,900), a 39% gap when compared with all Aboriginal workers in the Canadian labour force. The average earnings of Aboriginal artists are 30% lower than the average for all artists.
• With average earnings of $18,800, visible minority artists earn 38% less than the average earnings of all visible minority workers in Canada.

6. Economic returns to higher education are much lower for artists than for other workers.

• University-educated artists earn 38% more than artists with a high school education. In the overall labour force, those with a university education earn more than double the average earnings of those with a high school education.
• The percentage of artists with a bachelor's degree of higher (39%) is nearly double the rate in the overall labour force (21%).
• Artists with university credentials at or above the bachelor's level earn $26,800, which is 53% less than the average earnings of workers with the same education in the overall labour force ($57,500). In fact, the average earnings of university-educated artists ($26,800) are less than the average earnings of overall labour force workers with a high school diploma ($28,000).

7. Many artists are self-employed.

• At 42%, the percentage of artists who are self-employed is six times the self-employment rate in the overall labour force (7%).
• The average earnings of self-employed artists ($15,200) are 51% less than the average earnings of all self-employed workers in Canada ($31,000).

8. There are relatively few opportunities for full-time work in the arts.

• Nearly twice as many artists as other workers (42% vs. 22%) indicated that they worked part-time in 2005.
• Artists are employed for fewer weeks per year than other workers. In 2005, 68% of artists worked most of the year (40 to 52 weeks) compared with 77% of the overall labour force.

9. There has been substantial growth in the number of artists since 1971, but the rate of growth is decreasing.

• The number of artists in Canada grew much more quickly than the overall labour force between 1971 and 2006. There were three-and-a-half times as many artists in 2006 as in 1971. This is a much higher increase than the doubling of the overall labour force.
• The rate of growth in the number of artists has decreased during every period since 1971: 85% in the 1970s, 40% in the 1980s, 29% in the 1990s, and 7% in the shorter period of 2001 to 2006.
• The number of artists grew by much more than the overall labour force between 1971 and 2001 but less than the overall labour force between 2001 and 2006.

10. Artists, as a group, are becoming more diverse, older and better educated.

• Artists from visible minority groups more than doubled in number between 1991 and 2006 (123% growth).
• Artists 45 or older more than doubled in number between 1991 and 2006 (121% growth).
• There were 90% more artists with a university certificate, diploma or degree in 2006 than in 1991.
• There were 61% more artists with a college certificate or diploma in 2006 than in 1991.
• In comparison, there were 38% more artists and 22% more workers in the overall labour force in 2006 than in 1991.

Methodological notes

Individuals are classified in the occupation in which they worked the most hours between May 7 and 13, 2006 (the census reference week).

The earnings statistics include an individual's wages and salaries as well as net self-employment income. Other income sources, such as income from government programs, pensions or investments, are excluded from the earnings statistics. The earnings statistics include amounts received from all employment and self-employment positions in 2005, not just the position at which the respondent worked the most hours during the census reference week.

For more information

The full report, funded by the Canada Council for the Arts, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Ontario Arts Council, is available free of charge on the Hill Strategies Research website (http://www.hillstrategies.com) and the websites of the funding organizations.

Les coupures tuent la culture...

Protests against Prime Minister Harper's cultural cuts have made a much bigger splash in Quebec than the rest of Canada. Here the widespread unpopularity of those measures may just cause him to lose the province in the next election -- and hopefully, his chances at forming a majority government. Here's a video put on by famed singer-songwriter Michel Rivard which has had, by some estimates, some 500,000 viewers in the province.

I purloined this explanation from acidrefluxweb, who went through the trouble of making it. Says he:

Even if you don’t speak French, you should watch this as it’s very funny and mostly in English. I’ll guide you through it, especially if you are American as this is about Canadian politics.

Our Bush-worshiping Prime Minister, who we call shrub, i.e. a small bush, recently cut funding to arts and culture because it was for all those evil lefty folks. He forgot though that the impact in Quebec would be huge, as they depend on this for their own arts and culture, which is not only for more rich than English Canada's, but plays also huge role in maintaining identity.

Now in French, the word for seal is phoque. It is pronounced as fuck. So the arts people are scandalized by [Rivard's] first song so he says he will sing something else. In the song is petit, but in Quebec it is often pronounced as p’tit.

So once again the bureaucrats are freaked out because the think he’s singing about tits, and their conservative political masters would be very upset.

The rest you can figure out. 85% of the video is in English, & it’s very funny.

Spoiled Artist's Liberation Army

Check out this Spoiled Artist's Liberation Army response to Stephen Harper's arts cutbacks. Quite amusing -- and true.

MONEY... and a modest proposal

Just read today in the french Montreal entertainment review, ICI, that the Conservative government cuts to our already meagre arts funding -- $45 million -- amount to a mere 70 cents per Canadian, per year. As the article points out, most of us lose that much between the cracks in our sofa cushions.* Hardly a victory in a war against waste. And yet the implications for arts... well, I need not go on.

Meanwhile, close to three-quarters of a trillion dollars south of the border are being ploughed into AIG and other failing financial institutions to bail them out from their own colossal mismanagement and malfeasance.

Not to mention billions upon billions in US federal reserve graft that "disappears", trillions wasted on the military, etc.

Doubtless we have our own counterpart to that profligacy, hidden like an iceberg beneath our icy waters.

Meanwhile, in Southeby's last week, British artist Damien Hirst shattered all records by auctioning off more than 200 pieces for a cool $200 million.

Hirst specializes in animal carcases pickled and elegantly displayed in cases of of formadehyde. One piece, a bull calf with a golden disc on its head and golden hooves, fetched $60 million. Golden calf, indeed. Actually his work is brilliantly provocative, diverse, and at times beautiful as it is macabre. Consider his diamond-encrusted skull above, which sold last year for $98 million. Whatever one thinks of his art, one can't deny how deftly and ingeniously he plays with symbols of death, status, old-time religion, opulence ...just the things that appeal to the upper echelons of today's power elite. Decadent art, if you will -- with a firm emphasis on the etymological root, decay.

Hirst, who employs a factory of dozens of assistants, is our present-day Warhol. If anything, Warhol pales by comparison. (He was already pale...)

Better, I suppose, that all that booty go to an artist than some hockey player. Or some mogul in Dubai. (I don't doubt some of it is from moguls in Dubai.)

Maybe we Canadian artists who complain so much about our government should offer ourselves up for Hirst's next formaldehyde collection. I'm sure we would fetch a good price. Then we wouldn't have to depend on Harper's subsidies at all!

*Actually their math is quite off. According to Stats can estimates, Canada's population as of this writing is 33, 380,162 -- which would put the value of the cuts at roughly $1.35 each. Still seat cushion money, more or less. Arts types are not always known for getting their figures right.

CCA SYMPOSIUM: A REPORT

Last weekend, as I said before, I attended the Canadian Conference of the Arts 2007 Symposium on The Role of the Arts and Culture in Canadian Public Diplomacy. This is a draft of a report I’ve written for the League of Canadian Poets. It was not requested of me; but since they paid my way in, I figured certain people there might benefit from more than a thirty-second synopsis on a conference call. And maybe you, as well. (If not, then scroll way down.)

As a working artist, of course, it was hard to get my mind around the notion of “public” or even its subset, “cultural” diplomacy. Public diplomacy can be defined as cultural and academic exchanges between nations and more broadly, the promotion of cultural and national values so as to create a favourable image of one's own country abroad. For me, this seemed an almost theoretical issue, the concern chiefly of politicians, academics and arrangers of international events. My own preoccupation as an artist is surviving while putting out the best art I can, and publishing or performing it in the best (or at least decent) places; for the rest, come what may.

Part of the haziness of the topic, of course, lies in the terms in question. Culture can be defined in at least a hundred ways, from the fine arts to fast foods. The working definition for this conference seemed to be products and performances of the various disciplines conventionally understood as “the arts”, with the values and experiences of the culture as a kind of matrix or background.

“Diplomacy”, also, is a particularly sticky word: it suggests not only reasoned negotiation, but doing some sort of PR for your country. What if as an artist you have serious issues to contend with, and choose to show your society as you see it, warts and all? Isn’t social criticism one of the fundamental purposes of art? If you as an artist engage in such exposés, does that rule you out as a cultural “representative” of your country? These questions I had in mind as I went to the conference.

Although, as I said before, I imagined the conference would consist of so much complaining about our present arts-unfriendly government, which was conspicuously absent from the proceedings, the moderators tried to set a higher tone by presenting the day as one of “gentle reflection” on the role of the arts in international affairs, and stressing that we would try to “s’elever de la politique malgré tout” – to rise above politics, despite everything.

This, perhaps, was easy to do, considering that we were sitting in a plush auditorium among comfortable, distinguished company.

Here, in any case, are some of salient points made by various speakers. (I must stress that I did find this an educational experience: otherwise, I wouldn’t be writing this.)

A concern frequently expressed, not only by the Canadians on the panels but even a Japanese diplomat, is that despite a few major coups on the international stage in the last number of years, the general perception of Canada around the world is still that of a country lacking in cultural sophistication. The popular image is that we have plenty of natural beauty and resources, produce lots of hockey players, but continue to club our seals. Canada’s cultural diversity and urban character are relatively unrepresented and unknown. A lot of this is due to a lack of promotion of Canadian culture abroad. Unfavourable comparisons were made to other middle powers – France, Germany, and Britain – that spend a lot more per capita on international communications, cultural centres in foreign lands, representation at festivals, etc. than Canada.

A number of commentators stressed, of course, that cultural representation abroad is a kind of “soft power”, a sharing of our values, dreams and experiences that peels away prejudices and heals divisions between nations and peoples. Even if our art challenges common assumptions or is sharply critical of our society, that goes to show that Canada champions one of its core values, freedom of expression. The dissemination of our culture abroad redounds to our benefit not only in terms of international respect, but cultural tourism. (We need only think of all the Japanese tourists flocking to see the site of Anne of Green Gables. I hope someday I can come up with a better example. As a side note – this is my note, not one made during the conference – even the film Borat, a film of low jokes about Kazakhstan, has apparently resulted in a multi-fold increase in tourism to that country.)

One commentator – a marketing manager for the Stratford Festival whose name I failed to note -- suggested that ideally, if we were truly committed to enhancing our international “brand image”, we would create an independent entity along the lines of the Canada Council, but entirely devoted to the promotion of Canadian culture abroad. This would include enhanced budgets for touring, in order to “push our arts” around the world. To have the kind of muscle needed to do the job properly, he figured 150 million dollars per year would be suitable. As he put it, “Do it big or stay in bed.” If such an agency could be supported by an endowment, to make it impervious to the vagaries of changing government policy, so much the better. At the present time, international cultural promotion is a “poor stepchild of (the Ministries of) Foreign Affairs and Heritage”: this arms-length relationship creates a credibility gap. It also feeds an inferiority complex among artists: aren’t we worth being validated outside our country? Wouldn’t it be great to be told a little more often that we are outstanding, and to be so treated? Of course, such a commitment would imply greatly increased financial support for culture inside the country as well.

A commentator from Quebec pointed out that la belle province has fared better, perhaps, through its cultural promotions than other provinces. The international success of Cirque du Soleil has put forth a strong image of imagination, expertise, style and excellent management all at once; so, too, the films of Denys Arcand. A rather minimal provincial arts promotion budget –some 8 million dollars annually, all told – goes a long way, especially considering how little artists actually demand for their work. Left begging, however, was the question of whether artists should be content to receive so little.

Other notable contributions were made by the likes of former Foreign Affairs (and recently, Defence) Minister Bill Graham and Communications Minister Marcel Masse.

Bill Graham reasserted his statement, made while he was Foreign Affairs minister, that culture, following peace and security and economic development, was the “third pillar” of foreign diplomacy. He openly admitted that his own government did not do enough for the arts, although of course, the present government is “far worse” in ignoring that third pillar entirely. He praised the former Gov. General Adrienne Clarkson’s insistence that her foreign visits be accompanied by a cultural entourage, even though it was so roundly deprecated in the press for its “extravagance”, arguing that it impressed upon some important leaders that Canada, culturally speaking, is indeed a major player on the world stage.

Marcel Masse was actually refreshing in how he spoke about Canadian culture in terms that have been quite absent from discussions over at least the last two decades: how we Canadians are both awash in American culture and yet need to distinguish ourselves from it, how we need to express and export our distinct sensibility, etc. While Americans have a particular genius for marrying culture and the private sector, Canada clearly has to go another way. At the same time, he stressed, it is disturbing how rarely cultural questions are debated in parliament: cultural questions are simply not on the minds of our political decision makers.

Many other things were said, some of the most stimulating and insightful by artists on the panels and question period. I shall never forget, for instance, famed dancer/choreographer Judith Marcuse’s dance/pantomime expressing isolation and communication, or her inspired presentation afterwards. What I came away with from the conference was a heightened sense of the international ramifications of my own work, however small a poetry audience might be – how it can bring people together beyond the national sphere, and put a human face on the nation. Art is an important way to share who we are, in all our passions and particularity. As Judith Marcuse put it, a culture that doesn’t share its stories “gets sick.” And as Guilloaume Sirois in one of the background reports for this conference writes, “Whether they like it or not, artists and culture professionals carry the national flag abroad.” At the same time, modern medias present new opportunities to do some informal “cultural diplomacy” of one’s own: I need only think of various online reviews I’ve published in, YouTube, or for that matter, this blog.

HOW THE END OF THE COLD WAR LEAD TO CUTBACKS NOT ONLY IN MISSILES, BUT THE ARTS

Tomorrow I'll be attending the Symposium on the Role of Arts and Culture in Canadian Public Diplomacy, held here in Montreal. The League of Poets asked me to represent them there, because, well, I am the Quebec rep on its National Council and live in Montreal. I actually imagined this affair might be drab as dishwater -- and it may well be -- but a research paper sent to me as preparatory reading, by Rachael Maxwell with the rather straightforward title, The Place of Arts and Culture in Canadian Foreign Policy, surprised me by being quite engrossing, and made me privy to the astounding bit of information that I'm going to share with you now.

In an overview of the history of public diplomacy, Maxwell says that the Cold War set the stage for "what was arguably the largest and most ambitious public diplomacy program ever put forth". (Public diplomacy can be defined as cultural and academic exchanges between nations and more broadly, the promotion of cultural and national values so as to create a favourable image of one's own country abroad.) I quote from her paper:

It was, for all intents and purposes, a propaganda program that aimed to encourage anti-Communist psychology and create allies for the cause. With the help of the newly formed Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the goals were largely pursued through the dissemination of "anti-Communist culture" directed at foreign publics, and thus was a large-scale exercise in cultural diplomacy. The U.S. government sunk large amounts of funds into the CIA's campaign to "culturally" fight communism, culminating in the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) that was set up by 1950 and three years later in the creation of the United States Information Agency (USIA) that was devoted entirely to public diplomacy. The idea of the Congress and the USIA was to display art, primarily visual art, literature and music, that was directly opposed to Soviet dictates about what art should be. Art was to represent the freedom of American life, that being, the freedom of the individual as opposed to the collective ideology of Communism.

Basically, the CCF sponsored art that was banned in the Soviet Union. As an example, they put on the International Conference of Twentieth Century Music in 1954, which concentrated heavily on atonal music, for the express reason that atonal music was not allowed in the U.S.S.R. In 1959 the Congress for Cultural Freedom sponsored the Masterpieces Festival of modern art, which was to display great works that could not have been created under totalitarian regimes such as Nazism or Communism. The primary art of this exhibition and a number of other widely publicized art extravaganzas during the fifties was Abstract Expressionism. According the the CIA and American government, the art of Abstract Expressionism represented the antithesis to Communism. At the same time, the USIA facilitated numerous cultural and educational exchanges and was responsible for the allotment of Fulbright Scholarships and international radio broadcasts of the Voice of America (VOA).

American Ambassador Cynthia P. Schneider notes that this was a turning point for the instrumentality of cultural diplomacy; in fact, it was the "heyday" of cultural diplomacy. America went against the Soviet Union clad with, "jazz, abstract expressionism and modern literature." Musicians like Louis Armstrong were sent on government-funded tours throughout the Soviet Union and to countries such as Iran, Iraq, Nigeria and Egypt. In fact, American cultural centres during this time prospered in Islamic capitals. Schneider surmises that cultural diplomacy worked so well during the Cold War because it seemingly opened space for critical voices to be heard, in fact, "it even allowed and fostered dissent". Since [artists], actors, musicians and writers in any culture act as the national conscience, reflecting them often critically, on society" they were the most fitting ambassadors to send abroad to promote freedom, as they embodied the ideal of democratic societies, that being, freedom of speech.

Other countries were also active in cultural diplomacy programs, notably the UK, France and Germany; still, nothing compared to the potency and presence of the American program... Moreover, just as the U.S. used culture to undermine the authority of the Communist Party, so did the Soviets with their cultural achievements of the time. For example, the Soviets organized a momentous exhibition in New York in 1959 to display their cultural achievements and often sent their National Ballet on extensive touring programs around the world.

Public diplomacy experienced somewhat of a 'death' at the end of the Cold War. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the United States shut down more than 80 of its cultural centers around the world, under the rather short-sighted belief that "cultural outreach had outlived its purpose." This happened in combination with an anti-arts movement in the American Congress, which further led to cuts in American cultural programming both nationally and internationally and to the eventual elimination of the United States Information Agency (USIA) in 1999. Such short sightedness failed to account for nationalist movements that would spur religious and ethnic conflict, notably in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, and in general, across much of the Islamic world and many regions of the African continent, such as Sierra Leone and Rwanda.

As goes Mr. Bush, so goes Baby Bush (otherwise known as Stephen Harper.) Despite our massive national surplus, Harper's government has slashed virtually every penny for promotion of Canadian arts abroad, and made it clear through his policies, communiques and express indifference that the arts couldn't be a lower priority at home. (Margaret Atwood has a number of caustic things to say about this...) Indeed, it is to discuss and raise awareness about these concerns that this symposium is being held. On the panels I see a couple of former federal gov't ministers, namely Bill Graham, former Foreign Affairs & Defence minister, and Marcel Masse, former Communications minister. Too bad, though, that no one from the present government is on any of the panels. Did they decline to send anyone at all? If so, I may be in for a day of futile griping and bickering...

This MUST have been said before ...

TV, the movies, rock and pop music -- we speak of these as popular culture. Does that make poetry unpopular culture?

There's some lively discussion of this magazine cover further down in this blog. Seems it's rife with embedded subliminal imagery. Ah, those salacious ice cubes! RW has an article about it here.

If you want to know what Stephen Harper's like, read this article by Yann Martel. Considering what Atwood was saying about our current gov's attitude to the arts, well, it figures. Seems Yann has taken it upon himself to to send Harper a spiritual/literary book every two weeks, on the off chance that our Prime Minister will pick one up and develop his inner "stillness". You can see Yann's book selection (so far) here. Wind and waves have been known to wear away rocks... problem is, it can take thousands of years.

One of the purposes of art is to help us stock our minds with further patterns. Art crystalizes patterns of experience so that we can absorb them without having had to live through and learn them by a slow process of induction. Art can also give us a range of experience we would never otherwise have had. In a sense art is an accelerated life machine.

-- Edward de Bono, de Bono's Thinking Course, 1982

What kind of bohemian are you?

Came across some fascinating Wikipedia reading about the origin of the term "Bohemian".

Interesting that the article lists my own area, Mile End, Montreal (good photo essay here, by the way) as a contemporary Bohemia. It certainly was when I moved here, although now embourgeoisement -- otherwise known as gentrification -- has made it more difficult to actually set up that lifestyle here. (People who moved into rent controlled apartments years ago, like me, hang onto them -- and the lifestyle possibilities that go with -- for dear life.)

The website of a book called "A Bohemian Manifesto: A field guide to living on the edge" describes five types of Bohemian: the Nouveau, Gypsy, Beat, Zen, and Dandy. This makes for some glib but entertaining sociology.

It seems under those criteria my partner & I are a blend of Zen with an element of Nouveau and -- hate to say it -- a slight touch of Dandy. Actually at my stage of life, I tend to live it more than look it ... for better and for worse.

THE BLANDIFICATION OF THE WORLD

Brian Austin Whitney, founder and tireless promoter of the remarkable grass-roots music organization, Just Plain Folks (of which I'm a member -- even performed at one of his benefits when he swung round in his van thru Montreal last June), is also an eloquent and impassioned commentator where it comes to moral as well as morale support for independent artistic expression in any form. I post this from my archives because I found it inspiring ... whatever we may think of what I take to be a folky affectation -- that reference to "the most important Poets in US History" -- well it is all up to US, when it comes down to it . . . anyway, this should perk a few of you up. Enjoy!

Welcome to Just Plain Notes!
Just Plain Notes: Volume 1.138, April 19, 2004
Written by Brian Austin Whitney
****************************
Just Plain Quotes:

"I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents." -Sir Winston Churchill

"While we have the gift of life, it seems to me that only tragedy is to allow part of us to die - whether it is our spirit, our creativity, or our glorious uniqueness." -Gilda Radner

"The great French Marshall Lyautey once asked his gardener to plant a tree. The gardener objected that the tree was slow growing and would not reach maturity for 100 years. The Marshall replied, 'In that case, there is no time to lose; plant it this afternoon!'" -John F. Kennedy

"Being an original artist often means accepting that your talent, passion and vision must rely more on your self motivation, self preservation and self esteem than anyone else's."
-Brian Austin Whitney

My Take:

It's always been tough to be an original. Our society has long embraced the familiar, more now than perhaps ever in history. We seem to flock to the same stores and the same restaurants and the same movies and the same music no matter where we go. When I travel around the US it seems there's less and less to distinguish between one city and the next. Fortunately at least the terrain is different, otherwise I wouldn't know the difference between Denver, Portland, Indianapolis, Tampa, Houston or Los Angeles.

The music industry and many of their practices simply reflect much of this preference by the public. What artists see as watered down, ho hum music on radio is really just the equivalent to having a Gap, Walmart, McDonalds and Best Buy in just about every city you visit. People also flock to the same sporting events, buy the same books, watch the same TV shows and so on. Our industry is really no different. Radio consolidation has created the musical version of the fast food restaurant chain. (Would you like a McSong with those radio advertisements?) But somehow, we still need to soldier on if we want to be artists and not simply tools of commerce.

Don't get me wrong, there is convenience and comfort in familiarity, and with all our lives being bombarded by more stimulus than any humans have previously had to face, I don't see an end to what I consider to be the "blandification" of our world. (Yeah, not a real word.. but you can tell folks I coined it here first!) Even with the new digital technology that will make our music available to anyone on demand anytime they want it, don't get your hopes up too much that the Britney's of the world won't still rule. They probably will.

Throughout history, being an original artist and creator has always meant having to rely more on your self motivation, self sufficiency and self esteem than that which you get from others. Sometimes the work you do will blaze a trail (often long after you're out of the picture) that will eventually become part of the mass market (and thus bland) world. Rap music is the most recent example of this. Once considered the most controversial and ground breaking genre of music, it's been watered down for the masses to become the same homogenized and palatable mass market product that R&B, Pop and Country have all become.

Sometimes people will get up in arms against what you do (which means you're probably really on to something good). And other times, people simply won't notice what you're doing at all. But if you're an artist, you'll do it anyway. And you'll perfect your own brand of unique vision and output in the context of your abilities and resources. If you do that, you're not only a real artist, but a legitimate success at it, unless of course you only validate your art based on commerce. I've long believed that art and commerce are two separate things. Most successful artists understand that and work to make sure those two things cross paths enough to pay their bills.

There's always hope your art will be discovered, even if it's later than you planned. Emily Dickinson, considered one of the most important Poets in US History, had only a handful of poems published in her lifetime (all without her knowledge) and the few she actually submitted were roundly rejected. Of course immediately after her death her work was "discovered" along with hundreds of poems she had never shown to anyone. Commerce never found her, but society and the world did. Her art transcended contemporary commercialism.

Believe in yourself and your work on it's own merit. Let the critics and the mass market catch up on their own. If they do, just like Emily Dickinson, your work will eventually be available in every town in every country in the world. If they don't, to paraphrase what William Hung said on American Idol, "you did your best and that's all you CAN do."