down by the water front

Space, Creativity and Relationships

 

 

 

This Sunday’s report in the NYT Review on creativity, and the current shift toward group thinking has, I think, got some wider social connotations.

Taking the office space “brain storming”  ethic to its logical openplan-inclusive conclusion :

A video gaming company found their game thinkers unhappy…

“..It was one big warehouse space, with just tables, no walls, and everyone could see each other,” recalled Mike Mika, the former creative director. “We switched over to cubicles and were worried about it — you’d think in a creative environment that people would hate that. But it turns out they prefer having nooks and crannies they can hide away in and just be away from everybody.”

And Apple’s other man… 

“…The story of Apple’s origin speaks to the power of collaboration. Mr. Wozniak wouldn’t have been catalyzed by the Altair but for the kindred spirits of Homebrew. And he’d never have started Apple without Mr. Jobs.

But it’s also a story of solo spirit. If you look at how Mr. Wozniak got the work done — the sheer hard work of creating something from nothing — he did it alone. Late at night, all by himself.”

“ ..Mr. Wozniak offers this guidance to aspiring inventors:

Most inventors and engineers I’ve met are like me ... they live in their heads. They’re almost like artists. In fact, the very best of them are artists. And artists work best alone .... I’m going to give you some advice that might be hard to take. That advice is: Work alone... Not on a committee. Not on a team.”

Artists and their strange bohemian approach to relationships also reached an almost mythical and clichéd status at one point. I don't believe by any means this was ever the norm, but space needed to create does seem to be just as relevant today.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-16500768

In this short news clip on changing attitudes within youth in Japan, there also seems a similarity; a move toward a more general acceptance of a desire for personal head space.

And although the emphasis in this piece is about a shift in attitudes with Japanese youth toward forming relationships. Apparently they are not committing to having children and/or being in a permanent relationship by “turning their backs on it”.

The term lack of interest in sex may have also been glibly used here to describe this shift; “….a third of young men are admitting they have no interest in sex - a figure that has doubled in the last two years”, may sound shocking especially from a male perspective. But the topic covered is actually about a decline in birth rates and a disinterest in forming relationships.

Not sure either, about the accentuation on "men not feeling able to catch up with the women".

But the crux is probably best found in two young people’s replies when asked how they felt about gender and relationships :

Her : "..People tell me I am too bubbly, maybe women are getting too strong, but I think that is a shame as I am only living my life in the way I like."

Him : "..Building a relationship seems like too much effort, to get her to like me, and me to like her, I'd have to give up everything I do at the weekend for her."

 

The idea that women and men don't necessarily want to "give up" their personal space on a permanent basis, unless they specifically want to have children - that and the fact gender attraction and birth rates are certainly far more complex than this report touches on. The essence of it does seem to be hinting at a similar thing.

And ok, sure, statistics are statistics and reporting is reporting. And the women are coming across as not wanting to sacrifice a career or their hard earned embodiments of freedom, (in sharp contrast to what many of their mothers did). For example by renting/owing their own place. And the men subsequently come across as being apathetic or disinterested.

Whereas, if looked at, from the point of the stereotypical relationships of the last generation, the move toward having a re-think of this kind of commitment seems entirely logical. Especially when looked at in the light of previous generation's divorce rates and emotional health issues that resulted.

Mutual-space relationships or non at all does seem to be a logical generational progression. Less emphasis on the biological and stereotypical mechanics of relationships and more on general personal emotional growth.

Note, the boy interviewed talked about his idea toward commitment in an a way that seemed almost the antithesis of many unhealthy aspects that can form in relationships, like co-dependence, lack of personal confidence etc etc.,.

So, not so much of an apathetic or selfish disinterest in relationships by the young, but maybe a move toward a collective breathing space with an interest in the future of human relationships in general, including their future offspring.
 

Sounds like the healthiest pre-approach to forming relationships that I’ve heard in years.

The Price is Right (Art Fairs and Affordable Art)

 

 

Ok I've slept on London's Frieze and Affordable Art art fairs...

More later, though on Frieze with its satellites of Moving image Contemporary Video and Sluice. And not least the very gripping (albeit mainly London-centric) graduates fair incorporated at AAF......

 
 ...So its true, there was an element of me being tired at AAF after looking at Frieze, along with the fairs connected...and it is true I was definitely more absorbed by these.

For me now though, there was also an element of being personally aware, in the light of so much seemingly not-so-obvious commercial art at Frieze, of NOT dismissing the art here, simply because of its more obviously commercial context by becoming an inverted-art-snob.

 
Price is the key here; the Affordable Art remit for prices are from £400 to £4000. No more, no less.

 
And I certainly found more than a couple of galleries and artists at AAF who I really liked a lot. And true this style and content of fair did seem more pret-a-porter-high-street than the *high* art of Frieze. Or at least more as a stall geared up ready to sell, with efficient take away wrapping service provided.

 
But the twist, I think, was some of the art was definitely more interesting than say, some of the more *sure-and-safe* big-bucks work I saw at Frieze.

 
The obvious conclusion is, that art wise it shows a more high street version of the Frieze style....
For example a current trend was far more obvious at AAF.. in a fashion analogy it could be seen as an complete haute couture, unwearable-in-most-circumstances, fine lace dress, that would be shown during fashion week, instead being represented, by a rash of a hundred or so wearable dresses with equally fine lace adorned collars and cuffs ...the detail all maxed out.

 
That isn't to say the works were not art in their own right. Just that the art here was more prone to the obvious add-on bells and whistles of content style and technique.

 
That said, some less obvious and also refreshing work was present by artists of all ages and reputations, for whatever reason, who possibly hadn't yet been *noticed* or whose works were not represented by the *kudos* of usually exclusive city-centric galleries (....the type who are interested in, and can afford, the off-the-scale space rental of Frieze).

With subtle differences in styles and content at AAF, a lot of the art shown, represented with no less kudos of equally well respected European and London galleries, including the few out lying UK galleries present, was less subtle. Showing art here that is different, certainly seems to stand out from the overall at AAF.

And it is certainly not as simple as lazily categorising it as a reduced version of *haute-art* nor calling it a blatant Zara of the art world:

Stating the obvious I know... but as with larger fairs, I found you certainly had to look, because the nature them, big or small, is to capture, in a non-contemplative environment for a very small window of time, a whole host of businesses to one degree or another bent on spotting a customer sale.

 
In that way Frieze visitors differ from AAF. Frieze is there to-be-seen-for-business kudos as well as the business it attracts. The larger crowd who venture to Regents Park's Frieze are in general, people who are perhaps more touristy, even art-savvy, whether voyeuristic-student, in the business or artists themselves, all this aside from the obvious and the not-so-obvious buyers. 

AAF definitely has less of these, and I certainly saw no one on their phone conducting a mega buck sale for a client. It seemed to attract Sloane's London and Surrey's National Trust crowd, on a family-day-out. Able indeed to spend upwards of £400 on a piece of art not necessarily previously seen... an impulse buy if you like... If it wasn't such a sunny - but not so warm October day, blankets, picnic baskets and a possible low-key-champers lunch in the park might have been more in evidence..). But maybe that is less Battersea Park and more suited for the first AAF at Hampstead Heath next weekend...

Art for your family mantle piece perhaps, rather than the full-on accepted art for art sake, of pure-investment by the more commercially minded buyers of Frieze.

And from that point of view, the genuine *I like that I'm going to buy it* approach of AAF is spot on. Unfortunately in accepting more adventurous art, there is perhaps a slower pace of enthusiasm and intake. So the price tag can, though certainly not always, come with safe-bet sea or landscapes, or cat, cow, horse or butterfly, kitschy on-trend tickets.

 

 

 

Showroom Dummies : Women's Bodies, Representation and Conflicting Taboo's

 

 

Oh the irony…… I am taking a few moments to reflect on the recently opened exhibition by Jennifer Dalton “Cool Guys Like You”…..an exhibition that shows through drawings, graphs and photographic image a startling, and in these troubled times, seemingly irrelevant conclusion that most of the guests invited onto critical cultural and political tv daily's are in fact male.

In an open letter to the hosts Jennifer askes :

“….I assume you like to see yourselves as critical thinkers. Might it be possible to get a bit more critical about the internal and external forces that encourage all of us to think that men produce the best ideas and cultural products out there? I think it might…..”

“…..In 2010, the most lopsided show among you featured only 17.5% female guests. The most balanced among you still only featured 34% female guests. The rest of you are in between, but mostly huddled around the more lopsided end of that spectrum.

If I may be so bold, WTF?…”

 

Indeed.

I am in Spain, I am on a roof terrace taking some sun… so far so good you might say.  I am reclining on the roof of an apartment building that is barely occupied, apart from a few ex-pat retiree, saga-ready-sun-bathers.

I ponder Jennifer Daltons letter.

It is peaceful, no noise other than the gurgling of the pool. I have no bikini top on, I notice a few tuts…wondering the cause I look up, and as one lady leaves and walks past, she utters “appropriate clothing”. Given the baking poolside circumstances I then begin to ponder the meaning of the word appropriate. And, while her male friend passes by, who, if I’m not mistaken gives me a sideways leer which leaves me feeling decidedly uncomfortable, I ponder some more.

And, setting aside the fact that I had not suddenly developed a weird case of clothing tourette's. Nor indeed had donned a pair of hobnail boots for a poolside splash. I assumed the comment to be directed at my shameful inappropriate state of bikini bottoms only…. And hoped that they, and not I, had lost a few marbles in the heat.

I am in Spain, nothing surprises me, least of all an oxymoron of attitudes…so I took both with a huge pinch of salt.

 

So suitably distracted I began to address… sigh!… this obsession with women's bodies.

Specifically a cultural thing this was not. I was not on a remote beach in rural Africa or transgressing some obvious cultural opine. Nor out of *the usual context* of beach/poolside, distractingly flashing in the office or on the bus.

The scene was set in a country, for good or bad, who’s beach culture.. ahem …embraces the female form in all its glory. And a media that never fails to pass up a newsworthy moment to show a well formed pair of tits just to liven things up.

But taboo it seemingly still is.

 

Why is it women and their bodies are deemed justifiably to be co-owned by everyone else?.

Either simultaneously being ignored, objectified, or repulsed.

This goes deep into history. And deep into the female psyche.

 

And...Ok.. I’m going to leave breasts out of it for now, but, cop a feel of this ….

 

Not since the likes of the Emily Pankhurst protests, or Germaine Greer and Susan Sontag has the female mind and her body been talked about so much in the media and yet is still is not represented. Only misrepresented.

She is either over achieving in school by beating all the boys. Or over achieving in the home by still doing a juggling act with family and career… errrm… job (..was this ever only in the domain of the 80’s ?). Or failing her kids by not sending them 3 times a week to after school Nuclear Physics club.

I think a suitable term was coined way back in the 20’s… “nurse, cook and bottle washer”. Only now you can add a few helpful electrical appliances, offset by stressed out school runs and high achieve low pay day jobs, like teaching for example. And of course a good dollop of societal guilt.

 

Things have changed; we’ve come a long way from the sentiments of Some Like It Hot and even ‘80’s Tootsie. When a man gets inside the female form and mind by cross-dressing and confiding …..her metaphorically, into bed.

 

 

But when we still have Rhianna prancing about in her latest vid offering all the female gumption of a modern day Whitney in Body Guard…..errrm? …here comes that sigh.. again.

It seems the current nature of any general discussion about female value is not about taboo particularly anymore… but a free for all female bully fest. And that, as always, includes women's opinion on women.

 

This furore along with the quagmire status quo of media institutions, including film, with its actors, directors and writers. Hides the fact that women's presence, is seriously worrying ( count em! - Jennifer is right …).

 

So in this current media scape with its constant image stream. Another skewed projection is feeding the collective female psyche, already bolstered by previous generations and history.

 

The subject of women is a whole vast and sweeping category. And all gender has a whole host of intricacies'….

 

Judges and Politicians are at the legislative and policy coal face. But our perception of regularly represented women in media (and therefore society as a whole) is deceptively weak and wrong for such a large populous.

The back room boys and their elders are still, it seems, stultifying efforts of *achieving* women to front of house window dressing.

Apart from a few... people like Kirsty Walk who battles away weekly with a more often than not, male panel, and Stephanie Flanders wrestling with financial debate. Along with people like the retired Joan Bakewell (who had a run-in with the BBC contesting institutionalised chauvinism in the hiring process....).

This, along with put your feet up main stream film rarities like Julie Delpy’s directorial debut 2 days in Paris which was a pretty neat achievement given the romantic label…rather than a war. 

 

Informed media, whether online, on paper or big screen is still the main shaper of how we discuss, react and perceive ourselves.

The balance of women included in this area is still thin on the ground. And with this imbalance, are slow to be generally encouraged, hired….or educated.

A catch 22… A riddled endemic state.

A responsible? image-factory with a glass ceiling that could just as well read why bother.  Female presence in a media that shapes us is still usually first and foremost preened, smiley and fit, by default.…

30 something's, staving off their sell-by-date. A mixed message, voyeuristic projection.

 

The knock-on political tone and, in effect reality, is that cuts and policy are now also reflected in that disadvantaged imbalance.

What kind of example for a healthy, indeed I stress, a mentally healthy society is that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Clone Me!.....Again

 

Original photograph copyright of Glenn E Friedman

 

Public Relations, Plagiarism, and Self Promotion

 

 

This is how the World Assembly of Public Relations defined PR in August 1978 :

"The art and social science of analysing trends, predicting their consequences, counselling organizational leaders, and implementing planned programs of action, which will serve both the organization and the public interest".

 

So..... In a world now where it’s OK to use PR to maintain and promote any image and in turn fight for that image when the image is perceived to be threatened or damaged by a plagiarizer.

 

Is shameless self-promotion …the only way to go ?

 

I have taken a couple of examples of recent, contested or problematic image/ownership rights in the arts. 

 

Photographer / Artist : Glen E. Friedman’s Run DMC photograph being re-worked by Mr Brainwash, street artist ; with the ruling that the original had been plagiarised and the re-works to be *removed* (possibility of being destroyed)

Photographer / Photographer ; with Janine Gordon contesting Ryan McGinley’s re-works ; thrown out of court as vagaries of specific body imagery could not be *owned*

Art / ownership ; Robert Smithson's Spiral Jetty land lease for this site specific land art and its continuing curation.

 

 

But first a little backdrop history:

 

The Music Industry set a precedent years ago having seen a mix of technological opportunity which enabled copying and sampling.

The realisation of the argument; to say that anything not left in its pure state is therefore plagiarised, on the surface, seems to have been rendered un-navigable with the rapid flux of internet connectivity today. Unless, of course (as always) you have enough time, money and clout to throw at it.

And true, knock-off pirated copying is still very much on the no-no agenda in all the arts. Artists need to get paid. End of.

Although I wish I could be more positive about this simplistic sentiment. There are so many middle men and Mr 20% involved in the promotion of artists, designers, photographers and their work, that altruism is probably only half the story in protecting the original work.

With artists also being protective of their intellectual property or brand from commercial sharks. And legislation leaning heavily toward an overall semblance of control in these *share it* times.

Couple this with social diversity; communities being so poor, having no infrastructure with any wider connective say-so. Or those who are so switched–on they find themselves in a democratic minefield of who is allowed to say what and when. Some fall foul of their on-line presence. Others manage to free-up and share information that otherwise would have been inaccessible to most.

No Doubt the internet, as a popular tool, has power. And so in the hands of so many, so relatively quickly, also makes it a moral, social and political soup.

 

 

This is an art blog so I am not drawing on wider (and deeper) issues like phone hacking or wiki-leaks and all that has churned up.

I have tried to bring together different aspect within the arts here:

A simple concept really; artist/designer/musician/photographer/writer/journalist has/makes an idea of something out of something and so *captures* it, puts some creative value on it, it can be accepted, rejected or copied!.

 

The arts having different nuances ; all having very different histories and with that subtleties in legislation over the years.

Different mediums of expression but I will use the word captured to refer to the finished piece. Whether it is fashion, photography film, art, music or writing.

 

 

And, I am using writing here purposely as the idea of the written word is possibly far more readily understood as a standard tool for capturing and furthering expression of an idea.

 

As with rip-offs, subsequent similar close-to-the-mark expressions can be seen as a blatant regurgitation or expression of a new idea.

PR uses journalism/writing as one medium to further promote an idea or object. Straight word- for– word regurgitation is now being abhorred (whether paid PR or not…)

But still using the same word format and possibly similar words differently to form another view or opinion, is accepted difference.

 

The difference of the captured expression is what marks it out as different.

So with that in mind….

 

The Music Industry >>

Considering the longevity of sampling and mixing within the music business (as opposed to art and even fashion with its rip-off culture now coming full circle sometimes throwing things up much more interesting than the original….)

The mix/music industry is now far more accepting of *sampling* as opposed to *stealing*.

>>The music industry initially resolved the copying issue mostly by making it acceptable to copy as long as a reference was given to the originator and so suing was curtailed to out and out rip-offs. In so the music industry became far more hypothetically in favour of unlimited free use as a means to an end.

An example of Music Industry PR in the 80’s- 90’s. The White Label (usually 12 inch dance music) was already put into clubs 3-6 months before the official artist was named with a release date.

An acceptable form of hype or PR which created demand and interest. The Buzz style of which has been embraced in fashion, film and art.

 

Fashion >>

Fashion has also had a long history of rip-off culture and subsequent suing. I could name not only high end brands (Asian sports shops emulating actual shop brand design is a current problem for original brands). Friends too with smaller outlets having their own designs copied and done differently (damage can be seen to be done to the original design's worth, if it is copied badly).

I know of at least one person who eventually gave up on this as the court cases began to take over and lasted years and cost too much. I think “sod him” was the ultimate term he used. He went on to make different designs (some of which …ahem… possibly had a similar nod to the rip-off merchants own…).

High end dress designer Roland Mouret, mentioned here before, while during a talk for Fashioning an Ethical Industry at the Fashion and Textile Museum London. Also expressed exasperation at his designs being ripped off literally as they hit his internet PR machine, way back in 2005. Battened-down secrecy was the only option, as he saw it then.

All was fair in love and war it seemed. But then things moved on in fashion….

Style Bubble’s recent article about Prada brogues and their ASOS counterparts points out that maybe the plagiarism issue in this case is much more about the lower end of High Fashion brands being affected by this done-differently and (slightly) cheaper design than any blatant damage to reputation rip-off issue. ASOS having used a different style and mood of colour mix (gold and silver).

 

Photography >>

Photography has a long history of *intellectual property rights just as in the film industry. The photograph technically belongs to the originator.

 

The case last week when a judge threw out a copyright infringement lawsuit against the artist Ryan McGinley. The lawsuit, brought by artist Janine Gordon, was about images that allegedly copied Ms. Gordon’s own photographs :

The judges conclusion…

“ The plaintiff’s apparent theory of infringement would assert copyright interests in virtually any figure with outstretched arms, an interracial kiss, or any nude female torso.”

 

 

Two practices converging :

Photography and Art >>

One example recently of two creative disciplines having met like this, is the recent photographer- suing- artist debacle over an original piece of photographic art work.

The original art-work-photograph of Glen E. Friedman’s Run DMC was upheld by a US judge as having been plagiarised by Thierry Guetta (Mr Brainwash) street artist.

It was seen as not being different enough from the original piece to warrant its own status as *art* coupled with possible value-damage to the original piece and its original status.

And there was another distracting, but important issue here as to whether this was also a Banksy/Guetta art joke ; * you can’t sue who you don’t know*. The idea being the identity of Theirry Guetta although real, is supposed to be close to Banksy’s own shadow.

 

 
 

Run DMC done again differently by Mr Brainwash photograph courtesy BoingBoing.net

and sampling Irony aside! this remake has been mosaicked with broken cd’s

 

 

Art >>

Spiral Jetty, just maybe has the crux of what is going on at the moment within the arts :

Greg Allen; a filmmaker, curator, art collector, web entrepreneur and a philanthropist and an artist in his own right is petitioning for the land lease which houses Roberts Smithson’s Spiral Jetty.

The basic story elaborated on by Felix Salmon's reuters blog…is that the land lease is up...and so up for grabs. Utah State Council is opening up the lease for bids and so Greg Allen is bidding (alongside other newcomers) and the original lease holders The Dia Foundation, who have looked after the work up until now.

 

Whatever the nuances of Allens intention the potential problem is clear:

The work is iconic and so attracts attention. The work was made from the land it sits on and the line between where it starts and where it ends cannot be easily drawn. It was made as a site specific piece and so was captured in this state. It is not replicable. It cannot be valued other than in terms of *public* consumption.

So renders it practically and artistically immoveable aside from the elements taking over.

 

Whichever area of the arts we are looking at, the point here isnt about theft or using anothers property to form the expression on.

 

 

The written word shows how it captures expression;

A word is understood in its singular original form and meaning. A building block.

Words can be rearranged to express different meaning and subtly so.

 

Cloning is cloning, as is regurgitation, however badly or well done. It has its place.

 

PR is a delicate and fine art these days and with it brand ownership similarly so.

Social media with all the potentials of the social graph being realised has provided a PR’s wet dream.

The captured image/design/ music/art/written word today is no less its own entity.

It is though being (un altruistically) contested more than before as to who actually owns *it*, and therefore owns its right to exist.

 

Artists take a collective creative chill pill, its going to get a whole lot rougher...