Sad State of Affairs

I was reading an article in my old town newspaper (the IndyStar) yesterday, when I happened upon a story about the Indianapolis Museum of Art's new foray. Essentially, they are going to revamp part of the grounds into a nature park and have commissioned 10 original sculptures to be integrated into the landscape, each one by a different artist. What caught my attention is that there were artists from New York, from The Netherlands, San Francisco, Chile, even Cuba...but not one from Indiana.

This probably wouldn't be an issue if it was one piece, or three pieces. But ten?? And there was no way they could justify one person from Indiana to do a piece? Let's take an even wider scope: there was not one person chosen from the Midwest. The closest is a sculptor from Richmond VA.

I found this to be so illustrative of one of the main reasons I finally gave up the fight in Indy. Here is one of the gems of the city, a truly world-renowned art gallery. And yes, they do showcase local artists, mostly in short-term showings (although they do have a permanent area devoted to local artists). But when something "really important" comes along, the Board of Governors didn't even look close to home.

I've seen this time and time again in all of Indy's creative industries. More unbelievable, the same people that go to New York, L.A. or elsewhere for their art or talent will decry the lack of local talent and wonder why no one with any skill stays around unless they're stuck in Indy. And then wonder why their creative businesses lose clientele.

It pains me to read about this. I know talented people back in Indy who want to stay and try to do all they can to change the culture. One by one, they're all fleeing or getting out of the creative business they love altogether. Being in Austin and seeing a culture that nutures and heavily supports local artists, as well as being a cauldron of creative energy, the gulf that Indy and the Midwest have to leap seems more daunting than ever, because the problem and the viewpoints are so systemic and engrained.

The most depressing part was reading the forum postings in the Star, and how many people thought that criticism of the IMA was misplaced...because there's no good talent in Indiana. In essence, IMA has given credence to the stereotype. I'm sure they don't see it that way, and their decision to commission the sculptors they did was not intended to send this sort of a message (at least I hope it was unintentional); nonetheless, it still speaks volumes.

Watching events like this punctuate how glad I am to be in Austin, and how much long-time residents here take for granted. That doesn't mean it doesn't sadden me to see such myopic, provincial behavior in my old hometown.

WHERE ARE THE PATRONS OF THE ARTS?

Living in Austin often makes some "eureka" moments occur. One happened recently. After having various creative discussions, visiting some new theaters, listening to the plights of some artists it hit me that we've lost a serious creativity avenue.

A lot of us pay lip service to patronizing the arts. Some of us go farther, buying season tickets to the theater or the symphony, purchasing local bands' CDs, or buying a painting here and there from local artists. A few souls do a bit more by becoming "patrons" of various organizations.

What isn't happening is the nurturing of individual artists. There's no modern-day replacement for an artist taken under the wing of a wealthy patron or even a government and then allowed the freedom to simply create. Instead, artists compete for a fickle public's ears and eyes, or surrender themselves to bureacracies that might mean well but need to turn a profit, or just go all the way and try to bend to the whims of the corporate culture. If they don't, they are faced with the unexpected choice of making their passion and talent a side hobby, or starving for their art. But how much would this change if even a small percentage of talented artists were allowed to create for the sake of creation, without financial worries?

Don't misunderstand me. There are lots of pitfalls: giving someone a full-time job to create art ain't cheap. People sometimes donate to organizations they wouldn't otherwise for tax breaks and to feel good about themselves while they're being entertained; they're not going to cotton to the idea of sponsoring a playwright or poet. And I'm not suggesting some sort of charity ride for people simply because "they wannabe a painter or a songwriter." But the point is this: few of us ever consider giving a promising artist or even a more mature artist the opportunity for a period of time to work on their craft while being able to live a normal life.

We've all seen the person that we believe is talented enough to "make it" or change the way their chosen craft is performed in the future. But usually, years later we're either wondering what happened to them or why they've changed so much. Perhaps those of us who have been a bit more fortunate financially might wish to consider an alternative to blindly throwing money at an entity, and instead giving more support to an individual that needs the opportunity to free themselves from that which takes them away from their craft.