Cultural Alliance Invitation

A few weeks back i worked myself up into one of my spastic little tizzies about a local art organization in Milwaukee (the cultural alliance). Apparently this outbusrt was articulate enough to get the attention of someone other than anonymous posters armed with childish insults, though I did get some of that too.

Anyway, seems like some interesting discussions followed, publically and privately. My conclusion is that there's a viscious cycle in the Milwaukee community (and probably most American communities) where big well funded arts organizations overlook many committed valuable artists, then the artists get bitter and defeated, start drinking and stop producing much art, then the big orgs see this and feel justified in continuing to ignore artists, which bolsters the artist's victimization complex and alchoholism, which feeds back into the big arts organizations isolation, etc. etc. It's a mutually reinforcing cycle of useless shittyness.

People have tried to break this cycle (most notably Mike Brenner and the other founders of MARN, but also so many others). Unfortunately, these people get sucked into the cycle, or get burned out fighting against it. If we're going to ever defeat this cycle, anyone who wants Milwaukee to be a thriving, growing art community needs to jump at whatever opportunities come about that might break a crack in it.

One such opportunity is fast approaching. The GMC, Cultural Alliance and UWM are holding a "Cultural NonProfit Forum on Creative Community" later this month. Perhaps inspired by some of the above mentioned discussions, this is an attempt to open February's "Creative Summit" to a broader selection of voices, including yours. I met with Christine Harris last week and I beleive that at least she is genuinely interested in getting representatives of all parts of the Milwaukee creative community at the table for this Summit. The dumb assholes who think Milwaukee's problems will be solved by simply eliminating the bottom third of all arts orgs will be at the summit. If the bottom third doesn't show up at this Forum cuz we're too depressed, or lazy, or hung over, then there's not going to be anyone at the Summit to counter that argument.

Here's the details, sign up ASAP! Be there! I hear there will also be one the day after (27th) in the evening, for those of us who have day jobs and use up all our vacation time touring the D I Y punk circuit. Go to one of these forums, if you don't, then the terrorists- i mean... the corporate art beaurocrats win!

THE INVITATION

On behalf of the Greater Milwaukee Committee, the Cultural Alliance of Greater Milwaukee and the UWM Center for Urban Initiatives and Research, you are invited to participate in a dialogue with other nonprofit cultural leaders about the future of the creative community in southeastern Wisconsin.

Monday, January 26, 2009
7:45 registration
8:15AM – 11:45AM session
Italian Community Center, 631 E. Chicago St.
Free

This dialogue is designed as an open Forum in anticipation of the Greater Milwaukee Committee's Creative Summit, which will be held in early February, 2009. The purpose of the GMC's Creative Summit is to outline a vision for our region's creative community across the nonprofit and for-profit sectors of the economy, along with creating a roadmap to guide the way. The GMC Summit is intended to initiate a dedicated and community-wide process of fostering a stronger creative region. Invitations to the Summit will be going out from the GMC in early January. For more information on the background for the Summit, please read the GMC's Cultural Asset Inventory of the Milwaukee 7 Region as reported by the Cultural Alliance at www.gmconline.org.

The Forum will be open to the first 120 registrants who can attend the entire event. The purpose of the Forum is to ensure that those participating in the Creative Summit will have a richer and deeper understanding of the unique and powerful contributions of the nonprofit cultural arts community in a broader creative economy. The input gathered in this Forum will be directly utilized by the Summit gathering. After a brief introduction to the Summit process, Forum participants will engage in roundtable discussions around a selected list of questions along with general discussion. All information gathered at the Forum will be attributed anonymously, and will be collated for distribution at the Summit.

Please Note: This invitation is intended for the recipient only. If you cannot attend and have a strong recommendation on who should take your place, please contact the Cultural Alliance at dlubotsky@culturalalliancemke.org.

If you have any questions, please contact us.

Thanks for the work you do in serving our community.

Christine

Flight of the Creative Class

I recently finished Richard Florida's The Flight of the Creative Class. I read Rise of the Creative Class a few years ago. Richard Florida's conclusions have influenced and bolstered my arguments. His work as an urban planner / demographer / consultant is a different scope than the more abstract philosophical issues I'm dealing with, but crossing the two is interesting.

Florida has observed great economic growth in cities that foster a lively street level culture. He's found a strong correlation between growth and creativity. From Florida's perspective the most creative people (artists) primarily serve to attract high-quality laborers. These artists create street level culture, which attracts people and benefits to cities and the individuals and corporations within cities.

I am interested in what might happen when the most radical members of the creative class instead work for themselves. What if we stopped letting our culture be co-opted, packaged and sold to encourage growth for cities and businesses and instead create a culture and economy for ourselves? Artists are not receiving anything like a full return on the economic benefits we create. Why don't we find a way to maintain a hold on these benefits? If we can direct the economic growth we stimulate inward, back to the artistic communities, rather than allowing capitalist institutions to direct them into investor's pockets, what changes will that bring, not only in how we work, but also in how we effect the rest of society?

Florida goes beyond merely saying that street level culture attracts the best people to cities, he considers many of these professions creative in themselves, and tracks the economic benefits that creatives (whether they be artists, software designers, or hairdressers) produce. His conclusions are based on extensive sociological and demographic research (p 29).

He describes the rise of the creative economy:

"Like a turbocharged engine... in search of the institutional and social
arrangements that can unleash it's full potential. The real challenge of our
time... is to complete the system we have given rise to - to build the full
creative society that can channel the creative economic energy we have
unleashed. The potential is immense. Today, for perhaps the first time in human
history, we have the opportunity to align economic and human development.
Indeed, our future economic prosperity turns on making the most of each and
every human being's talents and energies (p 241)."

There are many challenges Florida associates with the new creative economy. Primarily finding ways to include more people in the benefits: "creative economy is reinforcing economic inequality producing a greater divide between regional haves and have-nots and also generating greater inequality within the leading creative centers" (p 20). I'd argue that this inequality is not particular to the creative economy and not the fault of the creative class. It is the fault of the capitalist class. Increases in inequality result from any economic growth in capitalism, the more rapid the growth, the more severe the inequality.

Florida suggests a number of policy solutions to answer this problem. He compares the current challenges to the industrial revolution and calls for a sort of new deal, one that's tailor made for the current situation (p 242-243). A New Deal is one option, but the social welfare and Keynesian aspects are not particular to the industrial age, and other New Deal projects, such as unionization won't apply well to the creative age at all.

Part of why the New Deal succeeded is that it altered the labor market by empowering the manufacturing class through unions and public works projects. But, more than any of these projects World War Two met the needs of the transition to an industrial economy. By removing many laborers from the system and increasing factory-based production, WWII opened up opportunities for the labor force who had been left out of the boom. It's hard to imagine something having a similar effect on the creative economy.

Florida's other solutions are more generic; the typical ways capitalism averts impending class warfare. Government regulation, Keynesian economics and Bismarkian social welfare to appease the poor are old tricks that grow less effective over time, and have been gutted by ideological attacks in the past few decades. Even if we did resurrect these policies, i doubt they'd handle the expanding class divide and heightening class antagonism.

If we look at this situation in terms of class dynamics, a more radical solution presents itself. I think our current economic transformation is more like the rise of capitalism than the Industrial Revolution, and the "political solution... required to fully realize the potential of a new economic and social order" will be more like the American and French revolutions than the New Deal (p 229).

There are three classes involved: the Bourgeoisie, the Proletariat (or maybe more appropriately, the Service Class) and the Creative Class. Currently creatives are allied with the bourgeoisie. Creative output is mediated and legislated by the ruling capitalist class, and so it is feeding into and exacerbating capitalism's inherent tendencies for inequality, instability, and alienation.
If creatives shift their allegiance to the lower classes we may see a rapid change. The rise of capitalism presents a historical precedent for such a shift. The bourgeoisie (then the insurgent class) initially allied with, but eventually betrayed the nobility, after running up against the monarchy's obsolete political and social systems. The bourgeoisie responded with a new ideology (Locke's right to life liberty and property). They sold this ideology to the serfs, as a political cause and then staged a revolution.

Florida describes similarly obsolete political and social systems. He says "neither party seems very well positioned to describe, let alone harness, the postmodern value system that comes with the creative age (p 216)" and "we can count on neither trickle-down economics nor conventional social-welfare programs to save us (p 193)". Our elections and other political system's utter failure is self evident. It's only a matter of time before creatives recognize the barriers these obsolete and failing institutions create and set to changing them.

Florida anticipates my thoughts and responds: "I'm not saying capitalism has got to go. Far from it: What i argue for is a new kind of market-based society, one that fosters human creativity more broadly, more directly, and across all social and demographic strata. (p 77)". But, such a society is not compatible with capitalism, he's looking for a paradox. Florida's descriptions match Marx's predictions very closely.

Marx predicted that capitalism would over time, tend toward ever greater inequality. Florida describes many ways that "inequality has consistently worsened (p 186)" and that "social mobility is decreasing (p 192-193)". Capitalist markets are based on price, profit and a particular sort of labor relation. According to Marx, these markets will always produce a situation in which owners who maximize their profits by minimizing their labor costs will win out. Florida's description of a minority of creative workers who "download stress and anxiety" onto themselves and "depend on a veritable army of [low paid, unfulfilled] service workers to tend to the things they don't have time for (p 203, 187)" is consistent with Marx's prediction. Capitalists would rather squeeze all the work they can out of a small group of workers who then have to spend their earnings on restaurants and house cleaners, than pay a larger number of people for a more reasonable time commitment. This is in the bourgeoisie's best interest, and will always result from a capitalist society. But, when everyone's interest is taken into account, it is much less efficient, and it works against the creative class, as well as the service sector and lower classes.

Fortunately, the paradox lies in Florida's overbroad definition of capitalism. It is but one type of market based economy, one defined by certain social norms and labor and property relations. It's possible to have a market without capitalism, indeed Florida's "new kind of market-based society" is, by necessity non-capitalist.

Florida's presciptions for change are also in common with Marx's. Both thought that change is not a "top-down or centralized endeavor, but needs to emerge organically (p 246)." Florida has studied changes of this type. He describes many instances when the traditional labor relation that (in my opinion) actually defines capitalism has come under question. In Flight of the Creative Class he describes how "people love to do creative work (p 27)" with many examples, from musicians (p 89) to industrial designers (p195) of alternative labor relations proving superior. I remember a seemingly endless list of empowered workers changing the workplace in The Rise of the Creative Class (citations forthcoming). In Flight, Florida sums up his and many others' data: "the majority of research on the subject finds that intrinsic rewards are far more effective in motivating creative people than money alone (p 77)". Workers are demanding not only more fulfilling and exciting work, but also more benefits, including profit sharing, flex time and radical workflow rearrangements. They prefer free agency and sub-contracting to solid employment. At what point do these changing relationships stop being capitalism?

The changes in labor demands go hand in hand with changes in consumer demands (trends toward citizen-consumers) to indicate a changing mindset society-wide. Florida mentions how Max Weber's "protestant work ethic... helped to usher in modern capitalism" (p 68). If this is true, then Florida's discussion of Ron Ingelhart's "postmaterialist" culture (p 40), the rise of irreligiousness, and how today people have "redefined the idea of morality itself (p 216)" indicates that there is a new ethic ushering in a replacement for the now obsolete capitalist norms.

Meanwhile, Florida has identified inequality is an inefficiency (p 188) and concludes that "it's impossible politically and economically to build a fully creative society when just 30 percent of the workforce reaps the full rewards of that economy's productivity (p 217)." He also demonstrates that "our society is not engaging even a fraction of the creative capital at it's disposal... doing a poor job of motivating the 30 percent of the workforce fortunate enough to make up the creative sector... [and] systematically neglecting the creative potential of the 70 percent of the population that lies outside the creative class (p 36)." If this wasteful inequality is built into the capitalist mode of production, as Marx claimed and history demonstrates, then it seems natural that capitalism will either have to change so much that it stops being capitalism, or it will be replaced by a radically new mode of production.

We are existing in a marketplace based on very different assumptions than the marketplace described by traditional economics. We can either call both these markets "capitalism" or we can say that we're entering something new. It depends on how broadly you want to define capitalism. The difference is merely semantic when describing current economic trends, but it becomes a defining assumption when looking into the future. Florida's hesitation to look outside of capitalism closes off the most creative and revolutionary approaches to "the great challenge of our time" leaving him to focus on goals and projects that are either too vague and unrealistic or too particular and small-scoped (p 246-266).

Towards a Practical Revolution

This document is now available online.

It's a general outline of the theory this blog is designed to explore and develop. My current primary goal is getting the research and supporting evidence for these ideas together to make a more solid argument for this theory.

Here's the basics, if you find this interesting, check out the longer document, and the rest of the blog.

1. The revolution is already beginning, i am not aiming to instigate it, only to describe it and participate in it.

2. The Proletariat is not a revolutionary class. The revolutionary class will be a third class radically different from both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (as the bourgeoisie was radically different from both serfs and nobles) The new class is developing a radically new form of economic relationships.

3. These new economic relationships will prove to be more efficient and are begining to grow a new economic system to rival and replace capitalism.

4. Political action (violent or peaceful) will be a part of this revolution only when the capitalists use state power and force to maintain their obsolete system by attempting to outlaw or inhibit the growing power of it's replacement.

5. The new economy is based on creativity. The revolutionary class is the creative class. Art is the new form of economic relations.

6. This new economy will begin in the growing art/entertainment sector of our economy, but will spread to other sectors as it proves superior to the capitalist form.

7. Live performance (theatre, live music) is the most revolutionary (and will shortly be the most popular and important) art form. If we (artists) can gain control of the live performance section of the entertainment industry, we can kick start the revolution.

Theatre and Labor Relations

There's some back-story reading necessary to provide context for this post, but, it's interesting stuff, so check it out:

Mike Daisy wrote and performs "How Theatre Failed America" and if you don't know what that is, you've got a lot more reading to do if you wanna catch up. Google it.

Teresa Eyring wrote this editorial response in the current issue of American Theatre

Mike Daisy wrote this reply.

This is what i think about it:

In these contrasting opinions I've noticed something bigger than the questions about theatre being presented. I really really like a lot of what Mike Daisy says, most of it is stuff that was obvious to me as soon as I started producing theatre and it's great to have my perspective validated by someone much more connected to the "real" theatre world.

But, i strongly disagree with Daisy's claim that theatre artists are entitled to benefits and garaunteed long-term employment. Eyring's claim that this problem doesn't exist is specious for the reasons Daisy points out, but it does open the door for my conclusion: theatre should not provide such things.

I look at these things from an economic trends perspective. The institutional patronage system that Daisy is looking for is old school capitalism. He seems to want the theatre artists to become "The Company Man". That's regressive. Corporations are doing that less in every sector because innovators found greater efficiency in loose freelance, subcontracting and flextime arrangements. Trying to establish (or re-establish) old school capitalism on theatre artists where it seems doubly inappropriate given casting and the project orientated nature of theatre work, is bound to fail, as it should be.

It was the creative class that spearheaded this rearrangement of labor relations, and yes, the transition is sloppy, leaves people out of things like health insurance and benefits, but as labor relations go, freelancing and shifting employment can empower workers as well as benefiting companies. What's more, it's a radically different labor relation, which is a step toward a post-capitalist society, something i think theatre will be VERY invovled in.

Letter to the editor- On the Fonz

So, there's this Bronze Fonz thing going down here in Milwaukee. Some corporate tourism organization is doing some corporate tourism crap and calling it art. Well and good, to be expected, right? Well, the unexpected thing is, our allies in the arts community are taking a solid stand against it. This creates an opportunity for the creative class to flex our muscles and see if we can make the squares respect us. Let's do it!

You can read about it here: http://blogs.jsonline.com/artcity/archive/2007/11/29/galleries-threaten-to-shutter-because-of-bronze-fonz.aspx

I wrote a letter to the editor of the journal sentinal and to the members of Visit Milwaukee (the org responsible). You should too: DNeilson@milwaukee.org, dfantle@milwaukee.org, JSEdit@journalsentinel.com

If you want to participate in our less orthodox methods of doing somethign about this, you should know how to contact me.

Here's my letter:

Being an active member of the art community in a city like Milwaukee is challenging. I've watched friends and associates leave town for opportunities elsewhere, and those of us who remain, do so with a doubting feeling that, a few years down the road when we finally give up on this place, we're going to regret staying and fighting for it as long as we did. This struggle is made harder when organizations like Visit Milwaukee come to the conclusion that investing in a bronze statue of an old TV icon for tourism is more promising than investing in small grants for local artists or arts organizations.

People keep telling me that a vibrant street-level culture is key to economic growth, yet the supposed professionals prefer cheap, shallow, tourist kitsch, even when important members of the arts community threaten to go on strike and skip town over it. One way or another, we're going to prove these professionals wrong.

Rex Winsome
Co-Founder of Insurgent Theatre

Refused.

I was listening to The Shape of Punk to Come at work today and I had a lag in activity and read the liner notes and they nearly bring me to tears. When i first read them years ago i was startled by how well they expressed ideas that were half-formed and totally inarticulate in my head. I continue to be amazed at how clearly these punks recognized the relationship between art and politics, how they expressed that relationship in their music, and how they seemed to be LIVING it.

Anyway, read the liner notes here: http://www.burningheart.com/refused/refmanifest1.htm

Refused broke up after this album. (read their equally inspiring "final communique" here: http://www.burningheart.com/refused/refmanifest5.htm) They split up and did other things, some of wich (TEXT) blow me away as much or more than this album does. Others of which (the international noise consipiracy) seem to have focused on the anti-capitalist sloganeering politics at the expense of the ideas, and the music.

I guess, what i'm looking for here, is: how can we do better? This band is who i'm talking about when i talk about a "movement we're participating in" as opposed to "my ideas". Refused were the creative class working with uncompromising dedication to acheive things overtly outside of the capitalist system. Many others are as well. Refused did it really well and overtly with, self-awareness, and a spirit of not only optimism, but inevitability.

Then they failed.

They failed because they couldn't escape commodification or the roles our society puts artists into.

Paint the Town is in some ways the most severe and violent play I've written, but it's also my first attempt to just come out and say what I'm trying to do on stage (as opposed to criticizing the two maintsream approaches and passively offering my ideas as an unspoken alternative). I've finished the first draft and at all the key points I've replaced phrases like "the future" "utopia" or "progress" with "[something that isn't cliche]" or else i've just let cliche's in as irksome placeholders that I hope to replace with words that hold real content. That, to quote Refused: "demand revolution here and now, and not in some vague future that all reactionary leftist fundamentalists and reformists are talking about."

Is this even possible? Or has our language been too thoroughly co-opted and sanitized by the mass media and the ruling class it serves?

The Artsy Schmartzy Round Table.

I put together my answers to most of the questions (the ones I have something to say about) from Jonathan West’s Artists Round Table discussion, which I thought was a great success, even though a bit too much (and any at all is too much) of the time was spent whining about needing money and attention.

Anyway, here’s my thoughts.

Each of these questions presupposes a different definition of the word “art”. There are definitions based on the artist’s intention, on the social status symbols, on functionality, on audience reaction, on social purpose and even on froofy soul-feeding quasi-religious magical nonsense, which only serves to confuse things even more.

Really, we need ten or so new words, each replacing “art” in a different context. So, for the rest of this document I am going to sacrifice consistency in favor of clarity (I hope) and follow the definition of art that each question seems to imply or apply.

The questions are paraphrased, shortened, not directly quoted here, and I may be misinterpreting them, but y’know, shit happens.

How conservative are MKE’s audiences? Are there ways to make audiences more receptive to things that are new or challenging—or is the very idea of “new” challenging?

The establishment audience is fairly conservative, but a conservative mainstream is always accompanied by a radical fringe or underground. “New” works can tap into the fringe and then break the mainstream open.

Arts use to spur Economic Growth—What might we do as artists to further economic impact of the arts?

We can own it. Richard Florida et al talk about the creative class as something that works for the bourgeois economy, and he’s right, we create energy, attraction, creativity, all of which are things that businesses want to attract in order to exploit and appropriate it. But, when they appropriate it, they waste it, because they use it to help fuel an obsolete economic system. If we don’t let them appropriate us, then our energy and creativity will multiply within our community and we’ll develop new cooperative systems of exchange and collaboration.

With entertainment increasingly being centered on the comfort of home, how do we make community-building art important enough to draw an audience?

Look to the future. If the current trend is for comfort entertainment, the reaction against that will be for live performance (especially with how virtual reproduction will take the economic bottom out of the recording and film industries). Today’s art consumers wanna sit at home, but tomorrow’s consumers are going to want entertainment as an event, an experience. If we keep it up and focus on producing good accessible live performances (or an “experiential element” to our static art) we will take over.

Is there a way to make “elite” arts affordable?

Yes. Do it cheap. Work Towards a Poor Theatre. Stop acting elite. Expect less monetary reward for your work. Live frugally.

Why the division between who can and can’t be an artist?

Because giving certain objects or methods the social status of being “art” allows artists to separate themselves and justify high prices for their art.

What can we do to engage those who fall away?

Demystify the artistic process, stop using art as a status symbol.

Can art be learned?

Sure. Innate talent plays into it as well, but with the broadness of what art can be, almost everyone should be able to find a skill or talent they have and then learn how to develop that skill or talent into “art”.

Do blogs and websites REALLY serve to close the gap?

The internet is a useful way to connect and build communities, especially broader communities, outside a small geographic area (and it’s incredibly useful to expand to a broader area and then come back to your community as someone who’s work has been shown elsewhere) The internet is not so good for distributing your work itself. Computers and email make the business and coordination side of art production possible without the apparatus that was previously necessary, it closes that gap.

How do we dispel the blue collar image?

A “blue collar image” and a “thriving arts destination” are not mutually exclusive. If we continue to develop the arts scene without fretting over how we don’t look like other arts destinations, maybe we’ll develop a unique, and in the end, a more attractive arts destination.

Do you think Milwaukee is a major player in the arts compared with other cities, some much smaller than us?

I don’t know. I haven’t traveled enough. I feel like I can achieve my goals here, it might not be the best place, but I’ve already started here and I’m not ready to give up quite yet.

Can anyone please give me a job?

NO. Get your own damn job.

How do we work to equalize that support or give younger artists and performers a shot at making an impression on the city and communitee?

Work with them. You know… I really am getting too old to still fell like the youngest person in a group of artists like this, and most of the people I work with are younger than me, some drastically younger. How I work with younger people is to take them seriously, treat them as peers, challenge them, and hold them to the same standard I hold ourselves to. Let them fail, tell them they failed and if they failed out of laziness or irresponsibility let them know they’re a disappointment. Then encourage them to learn from it. No patronizing. No special treatment. No kid’s gloves. Serious young artists want serious criticism. They’ll probably hate the critics, but if they're serious about what they’re doing, they’ll do more of it to prove the critic wrong. If they just want to be coddled, then they’re useless anyway.

Is it time the city mandated some space for the performing arts?

We shouldn’t need the city to mandate that kind of space. It’d be nice, and I’d try to take advantage of it, but we should be able to succeed without it. Becoming dependant on state help (or big bourgeois help) is not a good idea for revolutionary artists.

What role does art play beyond the realm of culture-production?

I like Marshall McLuhan’s idea that artists are sort of predicting the future. Also, at this particular moment in history, the next major revolution in the political economy will be the result of the creative class (artists) forming class consciousness, developing new economic relationships and making capitalism obsolete. But, that’s not an inherent quality of art, only the result of these specific social forces.

Is art a hammer or a mirror?

Art is a hammer used to shape reality. A very shiny hammer that reflects as it shapes. Or maybe it’s a mirror that by creating self-awareness is automatically creating change. Whatever. Art describes things and by describing them changes our awareness of them, and our awareness of a thing inherently changes the thing.

How can we get non-artist Wisconsinites more interested in what we do?

Make it cheap and approachable but still high quality.

Can we make art our actual career without quitting our day jobs?

Yes we can. There are at least three ways: 1. Sell out. Make the right kind of marketable art, get yourself appropriated by the bourgeoisie. 2. find a gullible patron who will fund you. 3. live frugal as hell. Sometimes it’s easier to get the right day job (something mindless with little or no supervision) and do as much of your art or arts administration while you’re supposed to be working.

What ways can we best promote each other?

First, you’ve gotta be good enough that I can honestly want to promote you. Cuz I’m only gonna say good things about something that I can honestly say good things about. Otherwise people aren’t going to value my opinion at all.

What makes a play compelling?

The synthesis of words, action, and presence is what makes theatre compelling. What makes a specific play compelling for me is that it engages with me mentally makes me think about issues that I am passionate about, see them from a different perspective and realize new things.

How do you instill respect and love for the arts in kids when they compare it to professional athletes and illustrious role models?

Turn off the television. Instill values such as frugality, integrity, individuality, responsibility and honesty rather than the values that the television and professional sports community instills (materialism, power, celebrity and fame). Kids will follow role models that reflect the values you instill in them. (As far as how to instill those values goes, don’t ask me. That’s one of the reasons I don’t have kids.)

What gives artwork staying power through the centuries?

Artwork’s staying power through the centuries is a product of it’s institutionalization as a status symbol. I’m not interested in this. I’m interested in yesterday’s art, but only as a foundation for today’s art and today’s art as a building block for tomorrow’s art.

Do artists inspire creative problem solving in others?

Not always, but some artists, certainly.

Is this influence necessary for the advancement of civilization?

Yes.

Is the connection between art and society stronger or weaker than a generation ago?

I wasn’t much around a generation ago, but it seems to me that our society and culture is different than it used to be, more complicated. Nowadays we’ve got this global monoculture, but at the same time we’ve got many thriving sustainable subcultures which are less geographically dependant than in the past. I think this reflects society pretty well.

Would you participate in a collective of your peers that would work to support you through financial support and production management in exchange for community service?

You know I will, Mr Richardson. If you can keep it from getting swamped with desperate whiney artists who think they’re entitled to make a living on their art without having to work for it, that is.

Is there interest among Milwaukee artists for interdisciplinary performance?

Theatre is interdisciplinary.

How do you know if you’re a hack who’s just wasting your time or not?

You can’t know. You can only look back and regret the time you wasted. Life is a constant struggle and you can’t predict the future or really know yourself, what your potential is. You can only do your best to plumb whatever potential you might have. If you think you might not be able to hack it, try quitting. If you can give it up, then do so. If you can’t avoid trying again, then you might still have a chance. It’s a question of when and how the priorities in your life shift.

Can poetry be integrated more fully into other arts in MKE?

Poetry is already involved in some playwriting and in songwriting. Beyond that, I doubt it.

How do you break the established system of MKE arts administrators who feel that they are more important than the artist?

Stop needing them. Administer your own art. Find a way to do your art that circumvents the necessity for administrators.
Arts administration can be an art form itself. Some people I know are amazing at organizing people. This is a necessary and beautiful skill. Joseph Beuys says that society is nothing but a giant kinetic sculpture with many authors who’s bodies and activities make up the material of the sculpture. Administrators are moving those people around, if they do it intentionally and creatively, then they might be more important, and more artistic, than the artists they work with.

Should all museums be free to artists?

No. You’d have to legislate the definition of “artist” or just make the museum free to all. “Admission is $15, sir” “No, I get in free, I’m an artist” “oh, can I see your card?” “what?” “your card. Haven’t you registered?” “Yes, but... my application is awaiting approval.” “Sorry sir.” Just because you think something would be nice doesn’t mean it’s politically practical.

I’m interested in the similarities and differences between forms.

One interesting thing about different art forms is how they fit with different economic and political systems. Feudalism worked well with painting and sculpture because it was based on patronage. Capitalism works well with film and recorded music because it’s based on commodification. Capitalism’s replacement will work best with live performance because it’ll be based on experiences.

What is our impact on civilians?

Whose impact on which civilians? Microcosmically, it can be anything from offending them to recruiting them. Macrocosmically, we predict the future and spread understanding of that future.

How do you as one who lives his or her life as an artist, fit into that discussion (of healthcare and govt services)?

I do not currently make a living on my art. I’ve got a slacker job that I abuse for those benefits. If there were other sources for those benefits, that’d put me one step closer to being a “full time artist”.

Why do people feel the need to create art and why do people keep coming?

This one can be answered ten ways depending on the definition of art. If art is an expression of your emotions or state of mind, then people create it cuz they got things to say and people keep coming because they hear something there. If art is a social status symbol, then people create it to set themselves apart as artists, and people keep coming in order to prove themselves cultured or wealthy. If art is a product of a desire for social change, or a looking towards the future, then people create and consume art because they aren’t happy with the current state of things. If art is the product of any human activity (“can one create works which are not works of art?” –M Duchamp), then we create and consume art because we don’t know what else to do.

What about desires for connections with the audience?

My reaction is more based on Paula’s statements at the table (she asked this question). She mentioned audience falling asleep and getting the same milquetoast praise for every show, even from people who slept through the show, in the front row. She’s talking about the quality of the audience, not just the quantity. Having people who engage with the work, who are critical, who stay awake. In my opinion Paula is having these problems because she’s doing Shakespeare.
Not that there’s something inherently wrong with Shakespeare (I do find it dull as fuck, but that’s just me) the problem with doing Shakespeare is that it attracts a deadly disengaged audience. People who are there for status and obligation, not for art. See Peter Brook, or this discussion: http://rwinsome.blogspot.com/2007/09/debate-is-shakespheare-deadly.html.
Also, we aren’t going to have an engaged audience until we have engaged, critical critics. We aren’t going to have engaged critics until certain theatre producers grow a thicker skin, or at least stop trying to censor their critics. See this diatribe for more: http://rwinsome.blogspot.com/2007/09/on-criticism-community-support-and.html

Do the numerous theatre companies compete against each other, or create more of a theatre going audience?

It depends on the company. Many companies are bickering over the same slice of pie, and it’s a stale, old moldy pie at that. Other companies are reaching out to new audiences and bringing non theatre people in.

Art cliques in MKE, why not cross fertilization?

As someone who works in an inherently collaborative art form, I’m constantly encountering and working with new people. We give all kinds of people a chance, especially with the shows I’ve done with Pink Banana (and now that John Manno has handed Pink Banana over to us, we’ll do more of that) We reach out to new groups and across disciplines whenever we can. There’s tension and hesitation though, because many of the people I’ve encountered are not people that I can work well with. Different people can have radically different approaches to art on so many different levels. Business practices, emotional needs, aesthetic qualifications, ethics, communication methods are all so different, especially among artists. We’re people who make expressing things in unique ways a major part of our lives, so it’s natural that we lack a common language.
Cliques form because people find other people who they can work with and trust. The risk that any new person might turn out to be another whiney, irresponsible, emotionally unstable procrastinator (as far too many artists are) is a disincentive to starting something with them, especially if they give that kind of first impression.

Gen-Sec Winsome reveals new five year program.

Well, not quite, more like year and a half program. I don't know, maybe i'm applying Brecht's opposition to dramatic suspence to my regular life or maybe i just need a structure to string my hopes and dreams up on, but this is what i'd like to see happen in the next year and a half. i like transparency, planning and advance warning. Glasnost. Perestroika. I need the long view to keep me sane and keep me trying.

first, the solid stuff:
10/6+7= Army of the Arts street theatre: Buskerfest + Artwalk.
10/9= Lucky and Pozzo and Jonathan West
10/15= Jonathan West's arts round table discussion (check his blog for details)
10/19+20= Alamo Basment's Departed at Darling Hall
11/17= Act Three at Darling Hall
11/07-1/08= Insurgent Theatre's Upua

Now for the more theoretical part of things. I assume there will be Alamo Basement and Pink Banana shows and street theatre and benefit concerts and performance nights and other opportunities and asides peppered throughout here.
1/08= I'd be really happy if Play in a Day happened every six months. or if Berzerk became a yearly thing as well, in the winters. those kinds of crazy non-traditional theatre, Alamo Basement shows are a fucking blast and don't take much time.
1/08-4/08= make the Experimental Theatre Workshop into a recurring public performance poor theatre thing.

now for the two diverging paths part of things:

OPTION 1
Experimental Theatre Workshop Productions on a regular basis
5/08-7/08= Ulysses' Crewmen production
6/08= Play in a Day III (or IV, if mike agrees about the six months thing)
6/08-9/08= Paint the Town on tour with Raperies and Missoula

OPTION 2
Experimenal Theatre Workshop Productions whenever possible
5/08-9/08= Paint the Town tour
6/08= Play in a Day
12/08= Ulysses' Crewmen Production

If Milwaukee is not kicking out the jams by the time of the Paint the Town tour, i'm going to use that as an opportunity to scope out a new home for yours truely. Cuz if this is all just going to feel like whipping a dead horse, i need an expiration date on my dedication to this city. Let's not let that happen, people.

Art and Politics (email discussion)

Had an interesting email conversation today.

BEN TURK
art and politics10 messages

David Bohn
Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 6:48 PM

There is a music video by rap artists mos def, immortal technique, and surprisingly eminem that has become popular... when you watch it you will see that it is pretty lyrically raw and powerful, and it got me thinking about how ben talked about Jim thinking not a lot of people saw the last show (arguably, I thought it sold well) because it was experimental and perhaps too controversial... I guess my question is, how do political-minded artists get their message to a mainstream audience and have an impact instead of 'preaching to the choir' (michael moore), and, what must be sacrificed for it to get to that point? For example, one of my favorite movies is 'v for vendetta', and when some of us were carpooling somewhere a few weeks ago, some of you said you didn't like it, yet to me it seemed like a huge success because it went #1 at the box office and reached tens of thousands of people. When does art matter and when is it simply cathartic? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5WlQ54Sg0'tell the truth' - mos def, immortal technique, eminem -dave

kelli korducki
Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Immortal Technique is the bomb. I love that guy! To answer your question though, I think it's hard to answer because art is in many ways a subjective entity whose various mediums have the potential to elicit different responses from different audiences. This makes measuring how much art "matters," or how effectively it communicates its message, difficult to gauge. Sometimes, the number of people reached by a given piece can serve as a measure of its significance or "sucess", but seeing as we live in a time where people like Dr. Phil sell more books than, say, A.F. Moritz (a Gugenheim poet and an awesome, brilliant dude) and musical tastes tend to drift toward complete crap like Pussycat Dolls or whatever, we know that mass-popularity is hardly an accurate measure of artistic merit. So, I guess I can't answer your question because I don't know how to approach what it means for art to "matter." Maybe there's no singular answer? Anyway, interesting question. Peace out! Kelli

JAMES LUCAS TURK
Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 11:47 PM

Immortal Technique is a slightly more intelligent version of the Dead Prez or Jedi Mind Tricks revolutionary but Gansta persona (I say persona b/c all of those groups are selling the revolutionary image. IT all but admits it on Revolutionary, Vol. 2 and if the Dead Prez were so Gangsta and Ghetto they probably would have found somewhere other than Comit to hangout at everyday for the week they were in milwaukee last month.) Anyhow i do think that IT, DP and even to some degree crazy ass JMT believe in the things they are talking about and want to press others into thinking about the actions that thier songs claim they take, not unlike Rage Against the Machine. So how does a fairly fringe hip hop artist like IT get his message out to a wide audience? Networking. Even though Mos Def and Eminem did very little on this song (does anyone know who the producer was?) it is thier names that has most people interested in the video. If this video is to be an example of expanding your audience and art to reach a more impactful number of people then i would say you need to find a way to collaborate with artist who can get you that audience. my suggestion is to have Brad Pitt star in the next insurgent theater production.

Matt Richardson
Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 12:57 AM

I would agree with pieces of both Kelli's and James' viewpoints.
It is my opinion that art, in any form, matters most when it is effective. For these purposes I define "effective" as: The result of an artist's work having the desired effect on the audience (i.e. Billy produced a sculpture in the hopes that couples would fornicate upon viewing his work. The audience responded as he had hoped, and his work was effective).
Effectiveness is determined by the artist, and then interpreted by the audience. So art with a purpose to make money is still art, albeit a bastardized form of the purity of art, which I believe is to expand one's intelligence and culture and challenge us to grow as human beings rather than turning us into a horde of baby-eating advertising whores.
I believe that, if a small DIY theatre company were to partner with a well-known commercial entity or organization, they would reap the benefits of the resources and audience of that entity. However there is the inevitability that said entity would attempt to force the small DIY troupe to conform to certain guidelines, which may interfere with our DIY troupe's art, message or vision.
However, I believe that mutual accommodation and cooperation between these groups will maintain the corporate and family-friendly image of the commercial entity, while maintaining artistic integrity and artistic effectiveness.
So what the fock, that's what I think.
-MR

David Bohn
Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 1:14 AM
To: esmartwave@yahoo.com

i think ks-one produced it... I think eminem knows this when he was featured in this song (his place in bringing mainstream attention to IT's words). i think that this song is a very good example of a meaningful work reaching far beyond fan-dom and has potential for some type of change, sparking people in the mainstream to research what he is talking about and educating themselves through the references of his lyrics... I know I have done this myself. I don't think IT is attempting to sell his image, which is why i respect him more than RATM, and I respect him because I think his art matters. I have to believe art can make a difference, to respond to kelli, it's important because I have been having a crisis of feeling I am not accomplishing anything with the work I am doing in a broad sense, which may just be something I need to accept, but whatever. It's definitely a fine line, to maintain underground clout but still make what you are doing remain relevant. Partnering with a bigger name, to respond to matt, is hard too because that popular source has to have controversy surrounding them as well.... in sense of theatre, i think theater X is a good example of an independent diy group reaching a wider audience, I mean, they toured the world and had an obie, but still remained relevant... they earned their name and became popular through their own devices.

R Winsome
Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:05 AM

I don't think art can change things through what it says, but i think it can change a lot through what it does. My greatest success as a playwright has never been with affecting the audience, but with affecting our actors. Darrel Cherny, ShirenRattigan, Jason Hames, Tim Chrapko, Ian Clark, and many other had all never seriously acted before being cast in one of our shows. Darrel is now a commited actor (and i still hope he gets tired of playing with shakesphere and comes back to his DIY roots) Shiren is a organizer with ACORN and freely admits that being in BTWH is what politicized her. Jason, Tim and Ian continue to act in the DIY theatre vein, more and more aggressivly all the time. Then there are also all the established actors and playwrights we've given new experiences and different opportunities too, including you, David.
It is my understanding that propaganda doesn't change shit, even that politics (reformist elections AND revolutionary actions) doesn't change shit. If we want shit to change we need to change the root economic system that all that is built on top of.
it is also my understanding that the fastest growing sector in the developed world (before the war mobilization, anyway) is arts and entertainment. This signifies a major economic shift and I see it as an opportunity. Whatever economic system makes the best arts and entertainment most efficiently in the coming years will become the dominant economic system (just as capitalism was better at making commodities than fuedalism and has now taken over agriculture too).
It is also my understanding that, given new technology, there is a shift in customer desires from recorded media to real live experiences. Which means performance. Which means live music and theatre. There is a big shake-up coming in how people get their art.This shake up is, again, an opportunity.
In conclusion, i think the most effective purveyors of the performing arts will be taking over the goddamn world in the next 50 to 100 years. Let's be those people. Lets do it in a way that tends toward greater cooperation, equality, rationality and sustainability.
So... there is a war coming. I think the relationship between myself and the people Matt is talking about is an inherently antagonistic relationship. I will go along with Matt's plans as long as it's clearto me that by doing so i am benefiting at their expense, that i am ripping them off and not ever risking becoming dependent on them. cuz they are my enemy. they are trying to make it so capitalism can still run the show after these shake ups and i am absolutely committed to not letting that happen.
David, how much what you do matters, has less to do with the messages of the plays you are in than the means the producers you work with employ. Rex

R Winsome
Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Oh, and i forgot to mention, helping people like Peter J Woods "destroy art and recreate it in his own image" is completely consistant with this mission. In fact, the subject matter of Made in the Mouth is more politically effective than Bring the War Home.
We'll take over the world, my boy, we'll take over the world.
Rex

Matt Richardson
Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:46 AM

To expand further on MR. Winsome's comments, as he and I agree on some basic principles on this matter, albeit with different angles of approach. I would love to see the world that is described below occur. I think, however, that the performing arts serve as just one piece of the puzzle tothe economic solution. It seems to me that Milwaukee, like a volcano, has reached a critical mass with its current infrastructure, and will soon eruptwith lava, destroying some old things and creating new opportunities. This is already occurring with the creation of loads of condominiums downtown, which will push the average joe/jane (like us) out of the downtown and eastside area to locations that are more affordable, wherever that may be. The entire city of Milwaukee is experiencing a growing realization that keeping intelligent, creative business people and artists is good for the city in many ways. However, no one can agree on the right way to bring them here.
So here is my criteria:
1. Have an affordable, clean public transportation solution that allows aperson or persons to effectively get cross-town (say from the North Shore toBay View) within 20 minutes in winter and end up within 3-4 blocks of your destination. This transportation method should also connect the suburbs at major points to the downtown area. Light rail or trolleys or undergroundwalkways are probably the best for Milwaukee (Toronto uses all three very successfully).
2. Have areas in the city that are affordable not only to live in, but to start and operate a small business. Possibly "economic growth" areas that offer lower taxes and incentives to owners/renters.
3. Utilize technology to keep the city green, people connected, citizens safe and give the local government a higher level of efficiency which is sorely lacking to date.
4. Promote "the creative class" and alternative living situations by funding and promoting organizations that support local creative or social ventures. Provide economic benefits to be one of these organizations and use political influence to support these entities.
5. Look at general social issues i.e. healthcare and formulate new and innovative plans that give people what they need and encourage them to come to Milwaukee and stay, like a state-run socialized healthcare system.
Either way, Rexie is right: a war is coming. It is on the shoulders of someone or someones to make these changes happen in order to advance our society. Every thing that you do, whether writing a play or acting in it or sponsoring it, that promotes the advancement of our society through artistic or economic means is a step in the right direction. It is our duty as occupants of this planet to do what we can to bring that kind of harmony to our existence and to promote the continued propagation of our race and our intelligence through socially conscious methods.-Matty R

R Winsome
Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Look at that! Matt Richardson takes my lofty abstract ideals and turns them into practical solutions on a local level. What a guy!
trouble is, i'm skeptical that any government entitiy will be able to acheive Matt's goals, cuz the government serves the status quo (that is the nature of government) and the status quo is either threatened by (1+4) or seeks to usurp and pervert (2+3) or just doesn't wanna spend the money on (5) the programs Matt is advocating.
If the local government begins to recognize the importance ofattracting the creative class we're going to be competeing for the benefits with other organizations that are already better funded, better organized, better marketed and much less genuinely "creative class" and THAT is who we're at war with.
I guess i'd rather fight on my own turf than fight for government patronage (which i'm concerned about attached strings and dependency-creation anyway)
three roads to getting there (the things i think oughta be big picture goals of Insurgent Theatre right now):
1. theatre workshop - ongoing activity, presence and skill building
2. a small tight touring show - what nonsense company and missoula oblongata are doing
3. doing what we've been doing, but with serious effort at solving the venue and promotion problems, which might just mean throwing a lot ofmoney around, which means solving the fundraising problem or emptying our own pockets.
Rex

On Marx

So, I've been thinking a little bit about Marxism... it's been a few years since my serious studies of Marx, but i think i can still clarify a little bit of the distinction between myself and Marx, and thereby between myself and soviet style communists, Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc etc...

I agree with Marx on how history works and on how capitalism works, for the most part.

Where i think he went wrong primarily is in the outlines of a revolutionary change. He doesn't want to say a lot about this. Because, we can't know the nature of the revolution until it begins happening. He does give some information, which isn't completely consistent throughout his career, but the conclusion that many of his followers drew was wrong headed, and to some degree at some time, he agreed with them. His actions were directed toward that sort of revolution.

He believed that the proletariat was a revolutionary class, and that the proletariat revolution would be the last revolution. He thought capitalism was so effective in the way it organized massive numbers of people into factories that it would eventually result in those masses developing a class consciousness, rising up, and appropriating the factories and the entire economic and social system.

Many modern communists will argue that this theory is not necessarily flawed because it has not been tested. The Russian application of this process was totally fucked, capitalism wasn't fully developed in those countries, etc etc. but i argue that the theory itself is also flawed.

If you look at history, at Marx's understanding of how the capitalist revolution happened, it's a totally different process than what he thought would happen in a communist revolution.

A basic outline of feudalism-to-capitalism:

there were two major classes, nobility (lords) and peasantry (serfs). The lords ruled based on divine right of kings, inheritance and brute force. The serfs provided labor in exchange for protection from neighboring lords or from barbarians. the economy was primarily agriculture based. the primary economic arrangement was ownership, consensual slavery, serfdom. A third class developed, the bourgeoisie (merchants). They worked under a new system (capitalism). They embraced new technologies (factories, manufacturing plants). They focused on a different sort of product (commodities). They had a more efficient mode of production (exploitation). They created a new working class (the proletariat). Their system was superior to the existing system, more efficient. The nobility kept the bourgeoisie down through force and law, rules of land ownership. No matter how much money the capitalists had, they could not own land and had to work with the king's consent. Eventually capitalists became so wealthy, their system so superior that they were able to rise up overthrow and replace the existing system (with help from the serfs who they promised things like freedom and opportunity). The capitalists then set up their system, exploited the serfs and turned them into the proletariat.

The Communist revolution described by Marx follows a significantly different format than this. His revolution doesn't include a third, rising class, it doesn't include a period of both economic systems existing side by side with the obsolete one using state power to syphon off the wealth of the new more efficient mode. If history followed Marx's prescription for revolutionary change, it would involve the masses of serfs gaining class consciousness and rising up to steal the crown from the king. That idea is absurd and not really revolutionary, the base relationships of the system would either be unchanged or would be abolished without a replacement.

The history of failed communist revolutions are similar. Soviet Russia set up the capitalist system, except with the state in the place of the bourgeoisie. Mao in China began revolutions against his own government, called for a permanent revolution. The Khmer Rouge became homocidally desperate in their search for a replacement for the abolished system.

my outline of the capitalism-to-communism:

Two major classes, bourgeois (investors) and proletariat (labor). The investors rule based on private property rights, inheritance and brute force. The workers provide labor in exchange for wages. The economy is primarily commodity based. The primary economic arrangement is exploitation, wage slavery, appropriation of surplus value. A third class is developing, the creative class (artists). We work under a new system (art). We embrace new technologies (the Internet). We focus on a different sort of product (entertainment). We have a more efficient mode of production (cooperation). Our system is superior to the existing system, more efficient. The capitalists keep us down through force and law, rules of copyright and intellectual property. But we are becoming more independent, our system is so superior that will soon be able to rise up, overthrow and replace the existing system.

I'm not totally faulting Marx here. He was very responsible in not describing the revolution in detail, and he was right. There's no way he or his contemporaries could predict this sort of situation, but it is observably happening in our society today.

Just look at the music industry. The big five companies are all struggling, blaming all kinds of outside forces, trying to change the laws in their favor, and trying to make the new system fit into the boundaries of the old (iTunes, fake indie labels, alternative workplace designs). at the same time, independent labels are thriving and independent artists are able to organize their own tours and promote their product without any labels at all. Our music is better than their music. An empowered artist is a more efficient worker, making a better product at lower cost, than a bunch of career songwriters and marketing teams hiding behind the glow of their pop icons.

A General Outline

This is the simplest statement of how i see the revolution happening that i can muster at this point. It's light on evidence and assumes some basic knowledge of Marx. Hopefully, with other posts i will back up and reference these statements, but for now, it's an outline of assumtions. I'll surely need to edit this, but i am going to keep the post here as a beginning point for anyone interested in my theory.

1. The revolution is already beginning, i am not aiming to instigate it, only to describe it and participate in it.

2. The Proletariat is not a revolutionary class. The revolutionary class will be a third class radically different from both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (as the bourgeoisie was radically different from both serfs and nobles) The new class is developing a radically new form of economic relationships.

3. These new economic relationships will prove to be more efficient and will evolve into an economic system to rival and replace capitalism.

4. Political action (violent or peaceful) will be a part of this revolution only when the capitalists use state power and force to maintain their obsolete system by attempting to outlaw or inhibit the growing power of it's replacement.

5. The new economy is based on creativity. The revolutionary class is the creative class. Art is the new form of economic relations.

6. This new economy will begin in the growing art/entertainment sector of our economy, but will spread to other sectors as it proves superior to the capitalist form (exploitation).

7. Live performance (theatre, live music) is the most revolutionary (and will shortly be the most popular and important) art form. If we can gain control of the live performance section of the entertainment industry, we can kick start the revolution.