The tone of all of these articles encourages divisiveness within the art community and a misunderstanding of the larger effort the Sparx in the City committee is pursuing. It encourages others in the arts community to question their support of these efforts. But it does not present a full picture of the intent of the project, or how small projects such as these might set the stage for future projects and events that tie in to the bigger picture of the role the of the arts in our community.
So, let's set the record straight, and perhaps begin to consider what some of us believe are far more important issues to debate than painted fire hydrants being judged by inappropriate criteria. Cleveland's On Fire and Sparks in the City were never intended to encompass or epitomize Cleveland's vast art community. In fact, this is a civic project utilizing the arts and artists, intended to ignite economic and cultural activity downtown. Our goal has always been to present just a taste of what professional and emerging artists can do at the street-level in order to entice visitors and citizens to shop around at the local stores, maybe stay longer for a cup of coffee, have a little fun, or even consider moving downtown. It is in fact ludicrous to believe that one effort such as this would be expected to reflect the entire arts community. Has that expectation been placed by these artists/writers on any other exhibition or event recently?
Other important information has also been omitted from these recent articles. A consistent issue for artists in this community is the issue of "exposure," which is often offered to artists in lieu of payment. More accurately, it means"we can't (or don't choose) to pay (or value) you...... but maybe someone else will." I have been reminded by one of the writers that artists want to leave town, and are in fact doing that. There are not enough opportunities to sustain them. Then why denigrate an effort that takes some small steps forward toward improving that picture? Sparx in the City is neither a corporate-driven event nor a bunch of artist wannabes waiting for handouts. Half of our committee members are entrepreneurs who believe in self-sustainability. Because the team of 16 people involved were not capable of fronting the funds to develop this initiative, yet passionately believe in its value, we opted to forge entrepreneurial strategic partnerships with large and small businesses who could also stand to benefit from this endeavor. This unusual collaborative grass-roots driven effort, initiated by artist input, has garnered unprecedented support on a range levels unusual in this community. The featured artists and performers are receiving payment for their participation. And not only have these artists, performers, and others like them been paid, but additional local arts entrepreneurs and creative class members have likewise been supported and paid for their services. The database of arts entrepreneurs we have developed has resulted in even more paid jobs for participating performers. As a result, the arts industry is becoming a little bit stronger. There's no doubt that collaborative efforts such as this can continue to strengthen the arts as a real force in the greater community. This is particularly important now, as for the first time in our history, arts entrepreneurs are the topic of many discussions in civic, economic and social circles.
So why do these artist/reviewers insist on belittling and weakening these efforts? Perhaps they believe that there is only one kind of art, or that the arts can serve only one purpose. Perhaps, as artists creating and exhibiting work in this community, they are not removed enough from the subject and their own artistic circle to have the journalistic integrity required to validate arts experiences that fall outside their more narrow interpretation of what is valid and meaningful. But this type of self-destructive whining within the art community (whether it is by artists, galleries or the arts journalists) perpetuates the mindset among would-be supporters and patrons in the business community and the suburbs that the art industry isn't professional and won't work together -- that it can't get its act together. And now IS the time to get our act together.
So, let's look at some of the issues related to the bigger picture, as presented in this week's Sunday Plain Dealer. associate editor Joe Frolik writes in his article"Cleveland can't pin every hope on a convention center" and goes on to state that "the region needs to build on another obvious pillar, the regions arts and cultural treasures" including "dozens of stages and galleries across the region. Much more energetically than ever we need to get the word out on that." And then he speaks of organizing a major arts festival here, one that could "showcase local talent in everything from the blues and polka to glassblowing and neighborhood theater." He states that this would require "intense collaboration, but could pay off big for the city." But could these same artist/writers see the big picture enough to support an even larger event that might celebrate (gasp!) polka?! In the same publication, Plain Dealer arts reporter Carolyn Jack warns us in her article "Refiguring on tax issue threatens arts money" that "despite polls that show more support for the arts than for a new convention center." Do smaller efforts such as Sparx in the City inch us forward? We think so. It is certainly a unique microcosmic example of a potential larger collaborative model.
The bottom line is this: ALL of us in our various roles need to consider the messages we are sending within our arts community and without. What each of us chooses to say or do now can make a difference, be it positive or negative. Those artists who represent us in the press must most importantly consider their words and actions in the light of the bigger picture if they do indeed want this whole community to move forward. Expressing public disdain for well thought out and supported efforts within the arts community is unwise and perhaps self-serving. Pitting segments of the arts community against one another at a time when we should be finding common ground is divisive. Disdaining the very public whose support we are seeking (and who support these projects) flies in the face of logic.
Our moment on the radar screen will certainly not last forever. Will this community rise to the enormous challenge we face? Let's listen to and learn from each other, as I hope some of us are beginning to do. Let's respect each other, knowing that it is the full range of arts experiences that we independently offer which makes us all important parts of our arts community. Let's act together. from Cool Cleveland reader Joan Perch, Art Metro
(:divend:)