29/4-SF15 skepticism over sth really Warhol
Still some time before attening CCA visual criticism (MA) thesis symposium down the hill at the campus, not enough for any trip, so why not sit down to write.
The thing that interested me most here so far, is a very similar question that HK is facing (maybe however just relevant to me). how to cope with arts development beyond the local, a newer generation (particularly there are so many art schools here) that wants a professional career out of (the national and international) art. market here is not as highly developed too, and they are (or used to be?) even more community anchored than HK, and yet they have also this resistance, beat, scrap, and thrift style of art in everyday living tradition here, compare with the nothing to lose of our situation home.
One of the book that I am reading right now is called the Warhol Initiative. It is about how the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, setup a foundation team to help small independent art spaces or groups around the country with their capacity building, to consolidation their work, mostly in space, euqipment and management aspects, and move forward towards a sort of small, medium size insitutions or establishments that could run for themselves in a more secure planned manner. It just remind me of the Para/Site case back home.
It seems a really good program, for the spaces that it choosen to support, like exit art and smack mellon of new york that I visited, I did make gd remarks on, and here in SF, they have picked: luggage center, New langston, SF Camera work and some community/educational groups. Yet I read this bk not without a bit of skepticism (as if some sort of Warhol's conspirancy?), for I am not sure of this way of development secruity has changed the essence of many of the original intent of those people and spaces. They could now e.g. raise more funds and hence support the arts more forefully than before, so what's my worry? I don't know. Maybe I am just one of those freakout for the big times (to come?!).
The thing that interested me most here so far, is a very similar question that HK is facing (maybe however just relevant to me). how to cope with arts development beyond the local, a newer generation (particularly there are so many art schools here) that wants a professional career out of (the national and international) art. market here is not as highly developed too, and they are (or used to be?) even more community anchored than HK, and yet they have also this resistance, beat, scrap, and thrift style of art in everyday living tradition here, compare with the nothing to lose of our situation home.
One of the book that I am reading right now is called the Warhol Initiative. It is about how the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, setup a foundation team to help small independent art spaces or groups around the country with their capacity building, to consolidation their work, mostly in space, euqipment and management aspects, and move forward towards a sort of small, medium size insitutions or establishments that could run for themselves in a more secure planned manner. It just remind me of the Para/Site case back home.
It seems a really good program, for the spaces that it choosen to support, like exit art and smack mellon of new york that I visited, I did make gd remarks on, and here in SF, they have picked: luggage center, New langston, SF Camera work and some community/educational groups. Yet I read this bk not without a bit of skepticism (as if some sort of Warhol's conspirancy?), for I am not sure of this way of development secruity has changed the essence of many of the original intent of those people and spaces. They could now e.g. raise more funds and hence support the arts more forefully than before, so what's my worry? I don't know. Maybe I am just one of those freakout for the big times (to come?!).
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home