Nickard raises some great ideas.

It got me thinking about the idea of an alternative space for displaying art and exactly what that is today. Undoubtedly the landscape has changed. The main question is, how do we as artists today, working in various media from traditional types such as painting, sculpture, photography to motion media to performance art, to book art and new media, find a way to show our work to a larger public outside of the "art world"? As Nickard said, his greatest frustrations were often with the art establishment and his great success was with the general public that is not entrenched in art culture. So how do we make this work accessible and enticing to people from a wide cross section of the population?

I think one solution could be the use of internet based media to at least gain awareness and appeal if not as a way to display the medium. There are of course limitations to web based media if that encompasses the totality of the work. It can be a good marketing tool however. I think that it's important to think about how we market our work as artists. If we are not constantly looking for reaching new audiences, the work can become stagnant. We may make the work because it is what we are interested in, but without an audience to view it, it exists in a vaccuum.

Bringing art into public spaces not normally associated with art is another option. This may open art up to new audiences that would not otherwise seek it by seeking them instead. There are of course logistical issues that exist with this option. Securing the work can be an issue as can getting permission to use a space. If it is a busy place, traffic flow can be a problem. If it is outdoors, weather can be an issue. There are of course works of art that are designed specifically for public spaces, however there is a different dynamic that exists when the work is a destination as in a gallery or museum than when it may simply be passed by and ignored. This seems to be the biggest issue. Art has become so self-conscious and out of step with the issues of wide public appeal that it is easily ignored in favor of more accessible staples of pop culture. That is not to say that I advocate the dumbing down of art in order to make it more appealing. No matter what steps are taken to find a wider audience, there will always be those who choose not to partake of those efforts. The issue at hand is how to know the audience that you seek and find ways to reach them. This is more difficult in some ways, because there is more to compete against, but there are also more avenues for raising awareness.

We need to discard our aversion for mainstream media and other outlets that most people pay attention to in favor of art and instead learn to use them to our advantage to draw in more interest. Here are some links to galleries, projects, artists information of note that might be a starting point:

http://outdoormuseum.com/detail.htm
http://www.squeaky.org
http://www.hallwalls.org
http://www.cepagallery.com
http://www.nysawc.org
http://www.rochestercontemporary.org/
http://www.bigorbitgallery.org
http://www.atasite.org
http://www.deepdishtv.org
http://www.artexte.ca/
http://www.artnet.com

A few thoughts that have lingered about for the past week...

In response to some of the recent readings and discussion, it brought up some interesting ideas that are of particular interest to me since they relate to media. News media has been a subject of interest for me since it is my current profession, but also because it is part of a social fabric, integral to our cultural understanding. It is often the source of attention, for both positive and negative reasons, yet the communication of information and cultural exchange is dependent on it. The main criticism seems to be in regard to the bias that exists within these organizations. It is seen as a closed system with a predetermined ideology decided upon by an elite group that is not representative of the diverstiy that exists within the populus they cover.

In my experience, there is truth to these opinions. The most prevalent plague for modern journalism is the corporate culture that drives it. It is limiting to be caught within the interests of multi billion dollar operations, with shareholders, boards of directors and a bottom line to meet. Isn't this true of most industries these days? Sadly, it is a sign of the times. It is simply more efficient, cost effective, and viable to stay competetive through consolidation rather than integrity and independent vision. Journalists will struggle with this for some time to come, as it does not look like a change to this model is in sight.

The idea of objectivity when dealing with any human endeavor is a fallacy. There are judgements made all the time by journalists about which stories to cover, how to cover them, what importance should be given to them. Frequently, the same news is covered by different organizations in a startlingly similar fashion. Though the work was done independently, it almost seems at times as if there are covert consultations that exist between competing news outlets in order to compare notes. It must be pointed out however, that every news outlet is by nature competitive, just as in business, to get the story first, and hopefully to make it accurate. Unfortunately, accuracy is more often sacrificed than expediency. At the end of the day, it is about gaining a share of the audience which is pulled in a plethora of new directions by the burgeoning field of new media.

It is true that there is less attention paid to news that comes from places like Rwanda or the Sudan, until the atrocities like the ones we have seen in recent history are substantiated by the sheer scope of the disaster and they can no longer be ignored. It is unfortunate. And even more unfortunate is how little it affects most of the audience that views, hears, or reads about it in the news.

Newsmen like Walter Cronkite were revered, not for objectivity, but for an ability to encapsulate the emotion of a story and on a human level, and allow viewers to draw conclusions from his own observations. His reporting was hardly unbiased, but he gathered enough information, that despite his own beliefs and opinions, which became evident within the framework of his field reporting and newscasts, viewers were armed with a sense of what was going on in these complex stories. In the case of Vietnam, they took it to the streets, and in the case of the Iran hostage crisis, they took it to the polls. In both cases, this type of journalism changed the face of an American and thereby international landscape.

Is this the best approach? Is this the role of media? It is one approach. And it was effective enough to gain a share of American television viewership that our current media conglomerates can only dream of drawing to a news program. The media is changing. It is changing here in this country, on a local and national level and around the world. The European model of the state subsidized system, unfettered by profit margins is shifting in favor of the American capitalist system. Whether or not this is the best system and what will come to dominate the landscape remains to be seen. But it certainly bears some study as to why the media seems to be so diluted in its effectiveness and so narrow in its view of world affairs when the resources at hand only continue to be advanced by technology.

With the emergence of newer, better and faster technology every minute that is designed to enrich our lives and immediately render our gadgetry into obsolescence, the question is raised, are we really better off? That's not to say that I am not a subscriber of the many wares that this modern world has to offer. I cannot deny the glint that sometimes fills my eyes upon seeing the latest offering of digital this or silicone that. Not that I can afford it, but we can all dream.

I too am sucked into the vortex of debaucherous electronic splendor at times, but not without stopping to look at how it has changed my life, both for the better and for worse. It certainly seems to complicate much of what it is intended to simplify and I am at times drawn to the simplicity of old things, the things that have been cast aside. I don't think these thoughts are uncommon today.

This leads me to the line of questioning that I am really driving at. Being a working member of the news media, I often find myself scrutinizing our industry practices. I am not always in agreement with how news is covered and I am often befuddled by some of the patterns that mysteriously develop where we are constantly producing the same stories and soundbites as the competition across town. This homogenization of journalism has led to a decline in the importance of having an individual voices and seeking truth in what we do. With the barrage of information from various sources every second of every day and the push from competition, there is no time to question or second guess, and barely enough to confirm what we disseminate as having basis in fact.

This leads me to the research that I have begun in the area of media coverage of American military conflict, beginning with the American Revolution right through to the current war in Iraq. I am interested in how this coverage has evolved due to changes in technology and how this affects public perception. Has the immediacy of information and the availabilty of so many sources changed the role of media? How have politics played a part in decisions made by media outlets and the access given to them. Is it the job of journalists to simply report the facts or is it also part of their duty to build consensus by drawing certain conclusions and making the public aware of these issues?

I want to focus in particular on the coverage of the current war in Iraq as compared to the coverage of the previous Persian Gulf War just 10 years before. There are vastly different issues raised in this short span of time. Much of it has to do with technology and government influence, but I think it deserves a deeper look into the history of war coverage.

the preponderance of thought drags me to a substratum previously unknown...

a realm of possibility inquires about the price of original sin, but not without first unmasking the fallacy of natural order.

imbibe at a well of indecision.

-----------------------------------

indulge me in this endeavor, now, for the purpose of discussion. my delineation into the art world began at a young age, and grew to a passion for seeing things with a discerning eye and thinking of the possibility for exploration into a myriad of subjects. my experience as a studio artist has grown into an interest for things visual relating to television and the effect of this media on its audience, film and the endless range of expression that comes out of these arenas. it forces us out of a comfort zone and demands for us to seek the answers to certain questions about society and culture.

to turn the conventions of art and visual imagery on their heads can be an important method for new understanding. sometimes bias is bred from a familiarity with a subject. we can't help but be biased, but it becomes necessary to shake up the formalist approach that we may subscribe to.

it seems to me that this is what we are trying to do. it is a daunting prospect at times, since ways of reading and making images may be so ingrained, we are unaware of the consequences of our perspective. but we must examine the reasons for making the work that we do, just as much as we consider the work itself. i believe it was Hegel's idea that was brought into the discussion as it relates to historical change. we are constantly reacting to what was done previously and often we are reacting against it, only to come to the conclusion of synthesis. our own ideas are only as original as what came before us. but that is not to say that what we do is unoriginal. we can't truly reproduce someone else's work even if we try (not that we should). we make out own mark. but it is crucial that the work is well thought out.

some key questions:

how are my own ideas a projection of the limits of my experience?
how has conventional thought influenced my perspective?
how do i begin to break down the barriers to a more pure perception of ideas?
how do the modes of dialectics play a part in the making and viewing of art?