I read a great article on Wired.com today about a new book by neuroscientist Daniel Levitin called This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession. The book discusses our neurological reaction to music and examines why humans have loved music since cavemen were banging stones together. (Okay, I'm just assuming cavemen banged stones together for musical entertainment... that's not necessarily scientific fact.)
What is the cost of saving art?
In 2001, the Taliban destroyed two 1,500 year old stone Buddhas in Bamiyan. Five years later, UNESCO is proposing to rebuild the statues at an estimated cost of $30 million each. In case you are not familiar with this story, you can read more in an article featured in the Washington Post earlier this week. Several thoughts and emotions ran through my mind as I read this article. First and foremost, I was disgusted at the violent destruction that took place in the Bamiyan valley. It is beyond my comprehension to understand how humans can completely disregard the sanctity of a site and crush the culture and religion of a group of people. But there are far worse crimes against humanity happening all over the world, and so I continued to search for more articles on the stone statues.
My disgust quickly turned to despair. There are two sides to every story, and Mullah Mohammed Omar, then leader of the Taliban, has his own reasons for destroying the statues. He claims to have ordered the destruction of the statues after he was refused foreign aid for food and medical attention. Instead, money was offered solely for the conservation of the statues. You can read more about the Taliban side in an article posted by the Asia Society on Asia Source.
We may never know or understand why the statues were destroyed, however I think the bigger issue is figuring out where the people of Afghanistan go from here. I wonder if spending $30 million dollars to try to put the pieces of a statue back together is the smartest and most favorable decision. My opinion is that the money would be better spent on food, agricultural tools and medical facilities. Rather than funnel millions of dollars into the preservation of an object, why not prepare the people of the Bamiyan valley for a more stable future? I understand the need to preserve art, particularly that which reflects cultures long gone. At this point, however, the residents in the Bamiyan valley are also on the verge of disappearing. And I think preserving their lives is more important than putting back the pieces of a statue.
My Computer is My Best Friend
An article, reporting on a survey by the woman friendly Oxygen network, shows some very interesting and long overdue trends with woman and technology. ”Diamonds are no longer a girl's best friend, according to a new U.S. study that found three of four women would prefer a new plasma TV to a diamond necklace.” More and more women are buying and using technology. Read the article here.
Although I must question if owning a technological device is the same as understanding how to utilize the device and how the device works. Using a computer to write email and to surf the Internet is very different then writing code or designing web pages.
Even though a plasma screen TV is tempting, I think I would pick the diamond necklace. I have to think about the long-term benefits. While the plasma TV is more entertaining, it will almost worthless in twenty years. Technology advances so fast that my new plasma TV will soon be ancient technology. On the other hand, the diamond necklace will not wear out and retain its value for years. Unless, they find a cheap way to mass-produce diamonds, which is possibility, again the endless technological advances.
Arts and culture boosting local economy
Lately there seems to be an abundance of attention focused on the impact of arts and culture on local economy. I thought I would share a couple of articles I found on the Cultural Commons Web site: Think tank promotes arts as an economic draw Detroit Free Press, 7/23/2006
Creativity seen as economic key Toronto Star, 7/25/2006
This is a trend I saw in a couple of Texas cities. In 2003, the city of Dallas announced plans for the Dallas Center for the Performing Arts, an amazing collection of venues in the Arts District of downtown Dallas. Indeed 2003 was a great year for Dallas as it also marked the opening of the Latino Cultural Center and the Nasher Sculpture Center.
The sleepy town of Marfa in West Texas credits its economic revival through arts to Donald Judd. You can read more about it on TravelandLeisure.com.
Finally, I must mention Austin, my favorite city to visit in Texas. Earlier this year, the Blanton Museum of Art celebrated the grand opening of its new building with an incredible attendance of 13,000 people. Thousands of visitors also flock to the capital city every spring for South by Southwest (SXSW), an annual film and music festival in its thirteenth year. If you are looking for something off the beaten path and have some vacation time, I highly recommend visiting any of these cities.
Interpreting Culture, part 1
When I think about the skills required to “read” artistic messages I always go back to the late French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s idea of “cultural capital.” Bourdieu’s notion is essentially that in the marketplace of identity, individuals build up a kind of capital that enables them to be understood by and communicate with other members of their “class." His long-term qualitative and quantitative study of the French has led him to several conclusions around this idea, especially as it relates to education and parents’ vocation as a predictor of cultural capital. Bourdieu holds that all cultural taste results from “the unintentional learning made possible by a disposition acquired through domestic or scholastic inculcation of legitimate culture.” In other words, “legitimate culture” or “high art” can only be taught and conveyed through proper socialization. Bourdieu’s idea is in line with empirical studies like Richard Orend’s 1989 study for the NEA that draws statistical correlations between arts attendance and socialization in the arts.
Bourdieu argues that as cultural taste develops, viewers become increasingly able to digest abstract ideas and symbols. An individual who has high “cultural capital” will not only be able to interpret and understand the kinds of artifacts and experiences available through the mediation of cultural institutions but will also enjoy them more. Again, Bourdieu: “The generalizing tendency is inscribed in the very principle of the disposition to recognize legitimate works, a propensity and capacity to recognize their legitimacy and perceive them as worthy of admiration in themselves.”
In the Knowledge Age, the relationship between production and consumption is shifting. Ease of communication has broken down barriers such that two folks in an Indiana can start a business, be in touch with a manufacturing plant in Guangzhou, China, and then have their products delivered directly to clients in Berlin, Germany.
As production of consumer goods becomes increasingly decentralized, so, too is the production of cultural goods. How do we determine what, in Bourdieu’s terminology, is “legitimate” and what’s not? What is the role of cultural institutions in creating these distinctions? How do we maintain our relevance in the face of relativity?
Please take our survey!
And a happy morning to you too
I consider myself relatively internet savvy, but admit I am hesitant to utilize some of the more recent computer based media. For example, I don't own a digital camera or mp3 player, my cell phone is pretty basic (no camera or Wi Fi capabilities) and my myspace profile is average at best (no video clips, rotating pictures or artistic graphics). While my technical skills could be significantly updated, it doesn't prevent me from enjoying the intelligent and clever accomplishments of others, particularly when it involves marketing methods and young audiences. Folgers has a snappy video clip on youtube.com that resonated with my typical morning -- I'm a full time graduate student at Carnegie Mellon University with frequent late night study sessions.
Folgers' commercial, called "Happy Morning", may never receive air time on television as it is only available on the Web. It's intended specifically for a younger demographic and those who count on the internet to supply the majority of their news and information. Dare I suggest these are the same folks attending our concerts, exhibits, workshops and performances?
I realized for-profit businesses are riding the technology wave for all its worth...what are non-profits and arts organizations doing to remain competitive? I'd personally love to see what your organizations are doing to attract new audiences, so if you have a neat video clip, Web site or blog to share, please send it to us!
A couple recent victories for us geeks...
Among the 100 new words just added to the new edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary are two very geekish items: Mouse potato (n) - an intensive computer user.
Google (v) - to use the Google search engine to retrieve online information.
As I've yet to get my copy of M-W's new edition, these definitions aren't taken directly from its pages. I usually wait until the dictionary's new edition drops in price (around November) before I make my annual trip to Wal-Mart to purchase my copy. I then spend a long weekend sipping brandy at fireside and reading every page of my new treasure.
It is amazing how something like Google can so rapidly capture the concsiousness of society that it becomes an official word in the English language. It was just eight short years ago that Google, Inc. first started its three-person office, based in a Menlo Park, CA, garage.
While an arts organization can't expect to become a dictionary word, this is further proof that technology is the fastest and most powerful way to connect with people. After all, "mouse potato" wouldn't be a word if there weren't tons of them out there just waiting to hear about your art. ;)
Geeks rejoice... we have two new rungs on the ladder of legitimacy!
What is Web 2.0 anyway?
The concept of “Web 2.0” has been touted as the “solution” to any number of non-profit management issues. Though the term has been used to mean a wide range of things, in general, it’s the idea that the Web is no longer about one-way information flow, but a dynamic portal where users contribute, comment on, revise and maintain data contained on Web sites. Think of the difference between the Encyclopedia Britannica Online (first generation Web site) and Wikipedia (Web 2.0).
TechSoup, through its NetSquared project, is categorizing the tools most commonly associated with Web 2.0 (blogs, RSS feeds, wikis) as the “social web” because of their ability to affect social change. Although I wasn’t able to attend, I heard wonderful things about the conference they held in May -- we had a MAM grad student who came back revitalized and excited by the possibilities for of Web 2.0 for the arts sector.
As John Falk and Beverly Sheppard point out in their excellent new book, Thriving in the Knowledge Age, the dawning of the “Knowledge Age” has resulted in increased public interest in museums and other cultural institutions. The book points to the new challenge for cultural institutions: can we adapt to this new landscape and become “bottom-up” entities?
The Web is a good place to start.
How do we “customize” arts experiences so that users feel the same kind of buy-in as they do with their other leisure activities? NFL.com has a “My Team” section on its front page that I can customize, when I browse over to Fandango.com I see “Cary’s Favorites” on the right side of the screen, and Amazon has been giving me recommendations for years.
How do we reach the people who truly care about our missions? Google has based its business model on only advertising to people who have indicated interest in a product or topic while MySpace links bands with their fans in a very personal way.
Blogging allows us to communicate frequently and informally with our constituents; creating an “Audience Reviews” section on our Web site allows our visitors to have a voice; hosting discussion forums lets us tap into what’s top of mind for our members.
What works for one organization may not work for another – we all have different audiences who will each have a unique response to an initiative.
One final word… It’s important to carefully consider the time commitments involved in starting any Web 2.0 initiative. Planning new online initiatives should be done just as strategically as for “bricks and mortar” programs.
We’d love to hear about how your organization feels about Web 2.0… Please comment.