“Artists aren’t special. WE are not special!”
I’m in a conference room at a prestigious university with 30 of my colleagues from across the country and the world – most of whom I had just met. My face is a little flushed and I’m aware that my voice is a little too loud. Did I just say (shout) that? Me? Who works for an organization whose entire mission is about artists? Am I going to be escorted from the room? Is someone going to take my artist card away? More importantly, do I really believe that? Someone comes up to me at the break and asks, “If you don’t think artists are special, why are you doing this work?” Good question. Here’s my answer:
Yes, I said that. Yes, it was not very diplomatic and there was probably a more delicate way to make my point. But, yes, I do believe that.
Special is different from important.
Artists are important – artists illuminate truth, offer transcendent experience in a far too literal world, challenge us to feel, and connect us to a common humanity. Artists make vital contributions to very practical real-world issues – economic development, education, community building, healthcare. That’s important. You know who else is important? Police, firefighters, community organizers, teachers, lawyers, doctors…pretty much all the “people in your neighborhood.” We need lots of people and skills to make a healthy community, and artists are one part of that. I believe deeply that artists are necessary for a healthy community – but not any more or less necessary than all those other parts.
And when we say that we’re special, we define artists as “other” or different. By putting artists up on that pedestal, we actually make it harder for our communities to see their value. In an effort to validate the work of artists, we end up mythologizing the idea of artists. By trying to prove how rare, how talented, how special; we end up reinforcing a stereotype that there is a chasm between “real people” and “artists.”
I know, I know, if we let just anyone call themselves an artist, how will people know what good art is? How will they find the transcendent experiences among all the ghastly YouTube videos? Maybe I’m naïve, but I trust them. Plenty of people are runners, even call themselves athletes, they don’t get confused and show up at the Olympics. Quite the opposite: being an athlete gives you a whole new appreciation for the talent, and work and guts it takes to be a pro.
The truth of the matter is that artists are everywhere. They are in every part of our community, our neighborhoods, our schools, our churches. Heck, if you poke them long enough most of those police and doctors and organizers, and, yes, even the lawyers will admit that they are artists, too. One of my favorite activities is getting the people in my neighborhood to admit their art. My bookkeeper is an actor, my lawyer is in a band, my exterminator is a hip-hop artist and my senator is a comedy writer.
And that’s why I do this work. Because artists are important and ordinary.
Laura Zabel is Executive Director of Springboard for the Arts. Based in Minnesota, Springboard works regionally and nationally to help artists make a living and a life.
Yes, Laura. Very well spoken. Artist are everywhere. Creativity can be as much about how you live your life and make it work as something you draw on paper. I agree that narrowing that chasm could help all of us in communities to appreciate each other more.
I couldn’t have said this better myself… and I’ve said lots of similar things over the years. Thanks for sharing.
Very good article!Well put! I agree with you and I am proof,I drive a truck for my living and health insurance and paint landscapes from life,as my passion.
Laura
So true. Separating ‘artists’ as special can, in a sense, show that we are different, out of the ordinary, and in part, always asking for exception. But, if we are everyday, part of our community, part of the state budget, we are a part, not separate.
I thought about this very issue today in my job hunting club. As club members introduced themselves, one by one they kept saying “I’m also a musician.”
I’ve taught university music courses for six years, and I keep treating the classes as if everyone is a musician. Mythologizing artists is, as you point out, an unfortunate byproduct of our culture. I, for one, would like to reclaim the phrase “amateur” in the original, French sense of “one who loves.” Then more people might proudly declare themselves amateur artists (musicians, poets, etc.)
Nice piece, Laura.
Wish I had said this. (But trust me, Laura, I will…and I’ll give you the credit.)
Artists per se, are definitely not special and can be found all over as you stated. However, Artists who sacrifice certain comforts, and can eek out a living by creating Art are.
Ever since Richard Florida’s pop-sociology book “The Rise of the Creative Class” arts administrators have been repeating the mantra that everyone is creative. Not only has Florida been criticized for his overly broad definition of who is the creative class, his premise leads many in his flock to forget that quality matters in the Arts. While it may sound nice to say that everyone is creative the reality is that not everyone is an artist and people who are creative are so in varying degrees of success. If everyone could be Meryl Streep there would be more than one.
Zabel is speaking Florida speak here where artists and bookkeepers are looked at as equal in value because they are both thought of as economic commodities to be used and developed. Really? Is that what we are reducing ourselves to? If artists are nothing special in our lives than art is going to be though of as nothing special. That’s shocking to hear.
I had similar thoughts when I read this. I’m still trying to figure out how to articulate them.
I agree with most of what Laura writes here. Yes art and artists are everywhere, and yes they are important. A healthy community is diverse in its knowledge and expertise. Stereotypes are lame and restrictive.
That said, I find the self-consciously provocative statement “Artists Are Ordinary” deeply disappointing.
I think my uneasiness with this kind of rhetoric, and the examples used to back it up here and elsewhere, is that it seems to imply that the answer – to what, I’m still not sure? – is to lower our expectations, spread our economic resources as thinly as we can, and start measuring artists by whatever scale is deemed most popular at this moment.
As an ordinary someone who has had the benefit of encountering extraordinary art and artists at key junctures in my life, I couldn’t be less inspired by this way of seeing artists and art.
Thanks everyone for all these thoughtful comments, it’s exciting to see people engaged in this conversation.
It’s interesting to me that some of you view this as diminishing the value of artists-that’s the opposite of my intention. I’m not suggesting we lower our expectations, in fact, I think that all that separating out of artists that we do lowers other people’s expectations.
Richard, I think we’d be doing well if people viewed artists and bookkeepers as equal in value, sadly, I think all our “special” talk has made a lot of people view artists as much less valuable than a bookkeepers. I feel compelled, too, to say that I don’t see this argument as connected to Richard Florida’s work or economic development arguments for art-it’s as much a reaction to that argument of “specialness” as any other.
Shanai, to me the question I’m trying to answer is “why don’t people value artists’ contributions as much as we want them to?” It seems we spend a lot of time shouting about our value without much traction. And I wonder if we spent more time showing people the art in their own lives, allowing them to participate and engage as artists, maybe they’d have more context for the value of art and artists. I also think that allowing people to engage with us as artists themselves increases their awareness and appreciation for the transformative experiences. As I said, I trust people to understand the difference. I’m curious what you find uninspiring about those examples? I intentionally picked people in my life I find super inspiring- people who walk in a lot of different roles in their community while keeping their artist identity as an important part of their lives and who have serious artistic practice.
Some of this, I’ll admit, also comes from a deep frustration with the fawning, precious attitude we sometimes have towards artists that, to me, seems so transparently insecure and desperate. I guess I feel like if we really believed we were so valuable we wouldn’t need to say it so much.
Laura,
These are amazingly hard words to hear from an Executive Director of an arts advocacy organization.
Here in Chicago all the artists I know, all the gallery directors, all the museum curators and administrators work tirelessly every day to open their doors and invite the public to participate. We go to great lengths to engage the public with openings, free programs, and lectures. As an artist I spend thousands of dollars a year on studio invitations and work daily on social media to promote not only my work but the value of art in our lives.
We suffer in this country from a long waged political culture war. In the 1980′s and early 1990′s , the height of our public support for the Arts, we had art in taught in just about every school, college education was relatively affordable and we thought highly enough in the value of what artists did to provide them directly with grants. This need for support was written into the original bill that formed the NEA and exists to this day (see http://artandpublic.wordpress.com/)
Now due to political wrangling we no longer support artists directly, school art programs are cut, and higher fine arts education is becoming out of reach for many. The entire NEA budget which this countries cultural institutions and arts organizations look to for funding ( including yours) amounts to a little over what we will spend on 1 new f-35 fighter jet. Just one. And the US wants to order 2000 of them.
These public policy decisions have a direct impact on the public education and knowledge about the arts. If we as a government don’t believe the arts are special enough to provide some meager amount of public support then individual people will grow up thinking the Arts are nothing special.
This is why I find it disheartening to hear you say that it is me and my fellow artists attitude that is to blame here. Joseph Campbell once said in one of his great interviews with Bill Moyers that history has shown us that it is artists that lead society and the people follow. Whether that art was the art of Monet or Miles Davis or even the creativity of Steve Jobs it has been the individual artists who pulls society forward and has made life more interesting. This reality should not be looked at as elitist “fawning” but something to be celebrated and valued.
Richard,
It’s precisely my point that these are hard words to hear – and its precisely because I work for an artist advocacy organization (and because I am an artist) that I think this conversation is important.
To place all the blame on “the other side” of the culture war is too depressing to me – it removes all our agency to change the conversation, and all our responsibility to take any ownership for the diminished value our culture and political leaders place on art.
I agree, exciting to see an engaged conversation here! These are things a lot of us clearly spend a good deal of time thinking about, and it’s nice to have a place to share thoughts and ideas.
Laura, I didn’t mean to say that I find the artists you’ve used as examples uninspiring – quite the opposite! I too have been impressed by how many of my artist peers have found ways to both sustain themselves and continue to pursue their creative work, whatever that may be, and it deserves to be acknowledged and celebrated. As does the work of organizations like Springboard, and McKnight, who help to make that possible.
I also agree that encouraging people to tap into their inner artist is important, both because it provides context for the value of artists to society, as you say; but also because creating improves our quality of life, and sharing that experience is a gift that can transform us.
I guess where I diverge is in the approach to asking, and answering, that question of value – whether people “value” the arts as much as “we” want them to, and why or why not?
I don’t agree that the problem is one of artist exceptionalism. I think it has more to do with how we define and share value in contemporary culture.
Unfortunately, ours is a time when not only artists, but scientists, educators, community organizers, and important people of all kinds are called into question because the value they create doesn’t seem to conform to the dominant economic model. And because the things they create, and their experiences doing so, cast doubt on the sustainability of that model.
It seems the response is too often to remind people that they are not any more important than anyone else, and shouldn’t ask for exceptions; when all they are asking is to be recognized, and yes valued, for their unique contributions to the common good – contributions that are sometimes hard to measure in dollars and cents.
This is perhaps what Richard was hesitant about as well, that we shouldn’t necessarily address this problem by making artists ordinary, but rather, asking what is extraordinary about artists, and what can we learn from them? How can the varied ways that we value and encourage art and artists provide clues to a more sustainable and humane way of valuing and encouraging the work of all kinds of important people?
I also don’t share your frustration with the way we talk about artists, because in my experience, I know very few artists and arts organizers who actually talk this way. This is what I find uninspiring, an attempt to correct that problem by reminding artists they are ordinary, as if the heart of the matter was really so simple.
This is all a long way of saying that I think we agree! We’re all finding ways, as artists and arts organizers, to create situations where artists can thrive and create/share their value with others. This is a good thing. There are undoubtedly many ways of doing this.
I guess I prefer to do it by holding up examples that inspire me and asking what makes them special, so that as people who value artists and want to share that value, we can better create situations where the extraordinary can emerge.
Shania, I love this question! “How can the varied ways that we value and encourage art and artists provide clues to a more sustainable and humane way of valuing and encouraging the work of all kinds of important people?”
Amen! This is so well said. I am a photographer, although I don’t do it as my main source of income. I’m still a photographer though, just as that weekend warrior is still a runner.
[...] – Laura Zabel [...]
In a room or a web site full of artists, this is a discussion where provocative rhetoric is a closed loop, where most everyone involved is an arts advocate, artist, or arts administrator. In this case, I believe what Laura is doing is illustrating a tactical decision / suggestion that an alternative way to argue for “the arts” is to use populist rhetoric.
This tactic it seems to me is useful in certain situations, but not in others.
I think that one area where it’s not as useful is in the larger, societal context, where a large amount of people don’t even think the arts are worthwhile, or that being an artist can be an actual job.
In those cases, which is where the arts collide with politics, it seems to me more useful to use populist language that actual has to elevate artists to “as good as everyone else.”
It’s in a hostile-to-the-arts environment that I think the sentiment of Laura’s rhetoric can be helpful. Then it comes down to presentation. Laura is right to admit that she was not diplomatic (I was in the room, actually). But delivery is important, and so is rhetoric, as we see here.
On the other hand, I think it is very important to recognize that it is important, and useful, to be able to recognize greatness in life, even if we also recognize that greatness is also subjective. Back to politics. George W. Bush was a politician and president. So was Thomas Jefferson. (Or replace Bush with Obama if you’d like). Must we insist that they are the same, that both are ordinary? Or can we choose to celebrate greatness in those times when it seems greatness is worth celebrating?
My peanut butter sandwich is certainly delicious and it is nutritional. I could get by on that, but I can also have dinner at a fancy restaurant, and I can recognized that the result of the chef’s efforts, combined with her talent, are worth of celebrating, and I would be perfectly happy to say that the chef is, in fact, a better cook than me. I could even say she’s special.
Populist rhetoric can be very useful. So can the rhetoric of merit and excellence. The trick is to be able to occupy both camps, not one or the other.
You can say that artists “aren’t special” if you’d like, but I would hope you could also say, and hopefully in the same paragraph, that sometimes they are, and that is something worth celebrating. You can say the same thing about firefighters. i would like to meet at celebrate the most excellent firefighter of all time. I would like to buy them a beer, and thank them.
Hi Chris! I was hoping you would weigh in here! You make some great points. I really like your ideas about using different arguments or tactics with different audiences. Maybe we could make a play book? (I’m only sort of kidding.)
I want to be careful to say that I’m not arguing that quality doesn’t exist or matter in art (or food, or firefighting.) It’s more that I think that in our effort to prove how special we are, we often alienate the very people we’re trying to attract.
As an illustration, yesterday a childhood friend of mine posted a link to this piece and one of her friends wrote, “ya know…I’ve always been a bit intimidated by artists….this makes me feel better
”
I recommend Larry Gross’ On the Margins of Art Worlds. The first chapter speaks to how Western societies view artists as “others” and why that can be so damaging.
I’m going to argue with this: I think you are missing the point. This is not about artists, athletes, or any other class or occupation. It is about the ‘cult of the special’. There ARE special Artists, Musicians, Athletes, Surgeons, etc…they are what are called ‘the best’ or perhaps ‘the most relevant to society at this time’.
The affectation of the term ‘Artist’ goes back centuries now, to the boulevardier or poseur if not before.
A truly meaningful and special artist is one who stays the course, defeats internal, societal and economic dragons, and carries on one’s mission in life. Just like anyone else who we claim ‘special’.
Unfortunately, with the ‘cult of the special’ we have celebrities who are famous for nothing. Children are given awards for simply participating in activities…Sports stars who commit atrocities and are forgiven, politicians who succeed completely on lies – and we know it – yet we celebrate them.
I understand the urge to make the artist ‘un-special’ out of revulsion for this state of affairs. But it also disempowers the artist. I think it is crucial that the artist maintain his or her vision, be it ‘common’ or exotic. To find oneself alienated from many is just part of the job. And it is indeed painful to wish for recognition in a discipline that places a high, high premium on being uncompromising – in a world that seems to revel in recognition for recognitions sake, no matter what the social or moral price!
Maybe the question is not ‘specialness’ but mastery & practice. Mastery is aspirational and inspirational. Practice is ordinary, but it leads to mastery. Practice is where the work is. I think this subject will perennially ruffle feathers because creativity is inherent in everyone that breathes. But your ‘worth’ ‘value’ and ‘intelligence’ is determined by the era you live in, your particularly gene pool, the marketplace, politics, the dominant culture, etc. etc. What I hope people will begin to talk about – and what art is a gateway to – is how practicing anything with great love and attention is what leads to transcendent MOMENTS. I personally don’t care whether you reach those moments through art-making, cooking, tinkering, meditation/prayer, hiking in the woods, researching the cure for cancer, playing with your children, serving your community with your work, your heart and your time. Just make sure you work towards those moments, because they sustain us all. And when you notice another person who is mastering THAT art, encourage them, absorb their gifts, tell people about them, learn from them, send them money to keep going, get off your butt and applaud.
Well said, Betsy! I like this way of thinking, and the challenge of trying to share this with others.
I really get what you are saying, Laura – and what some of the dissenting opinions above are getting at as well. My reaction is that perhaps what you are pushing up against is not so much about “specialness,” as the “other-ness” that is often the byproduct of specialness. There is something undeniably special about (certain) art (what art moves you is of course entirely subjective) – and sometimes there is something very special about those that make it too. There are exceptional people in every field – art is no different.
I think the problem is that the public often thinks of art as a magical occurrence – POOF, and art appears on the canvas – and that all “real” artists are tortured geniuses or mediums (or layabouts!), nothing at all like the ordinary person – totally other in a way that puts the artist on a pedestal (or worse in a category with “crazy” or “irrelevant”). Real, frank conversation about art – the kind that fulfills and inspires – is sacrificed to these images of the artist and the arts. People are intimidated or made apathetic by such “other-ness”. They disengage (or never engage at all), they undervalue. There’s a reason this image of the arts and the artist came to be of course – the mystery that surrounds art and the talk of genius sometimes makes for very good marketing, especially when it comes to driving high prices! But really, as many of us know, making art can be a real grind, like any other job. It can be messy, frustrating, and entirely unglamorous! It just happens to also be very satisfying on occasion – otherwise, why would we keep it up?
So, I suppose what I am getting at is that the mystique surrounding art and the artist is sometimes justified (the extraordinary can and does occur), but by applying this aura of specialness too liberally in the name of marketing – by keeping the arts elevated on a high platform most of the time – we can alienate the potential audience and jeopardize our funding or value. We can come off as too “precious”, not stable and grounded.
We can also alienate potential artists. I will admit to occasionally finding myself insecure when surrounded by other artists at shows or events, despite a background and current practice in the arts. It happens in these moments that I look down at my unassuming garb and consider my simple hairdo, examine my outward quiet and think “gosh, I don’t fit in here at all”. I am decidedly ordinary in presentation. My studio is decidedly un-studio-looking. My dream art space would involve a worn-out couch, lots of books, and people coming in off the street to just hang out and see/hear something interesting, something that in a subtle way might change a mind or heart, offer new opportunities and connections (luckily, I don’t think I’m alone in this after all, as I see these kinds of organizations springing up).
How many potential amazing art-makers out there think “gosh, I don’t fit in here” and waltz away to other pursuits because the image of the artist is just too rarefied, too different from their own self-image? Intelligent people with amazing points of view say to me all the time in envious, awed, or helpless tones, “I could never draw like that, you are so talented,” and I feel like the Wizard of Oz, stepping out from behind the curtain when I say in response that “Drawing is a skill that I had to learn – and you could too!” This is the problem with specialness. There’s a place for accolades and celebration of greatness, but I just think this is too much a part of the everyday fabric of how the arts are presented and perceived in the outside world. We need to be more vital.
“In my experience, you always think you know what you’re doing; you always think you can explain, but you always discover, years later, that you didn’t and you couldn’t. This leads me to suspect that the principal function of human reason is to rationalize what your lizard brain demands of you. That’s my idea. Art and writing come from somewhere down around the lizard brain. It’s a much more peculiar activity than we like to think it is. The problems arise when we try to domesticate the practice, to pretend that it’s a normal human activity and that “everybody’s creative.” They’re not.” Dave Hickey http://www.believermag.com/issues/200711/?read=interview_hickey
exactly- and who the heck are all these “creatives” that are purported to be wandering around my city, anyway?!
(love Dave Hickey’s writings.)
For me, the distinction is between work for someone else, (within a predetermined set of rules, expectations or actions); and the kind of endeavor which demands that you constantly bring to life a unique vision that has never before existed. Hopefully with great skill and insight.
There are no road maps or entitlements.
Using the word “special” takes me straight to Mr. Rogers telling us we are just that. It’s as soothing as a comfy sweater. Sure, as human beings we all have the capacity to bring something unique to our lives, but to equate the practice and slog of creating truly original work with being a fireman or accountant doesn’t quite cut it in my book, anymore than it does when artists feel “entitled” to earn a living doing what they do because people pay lawyers and auto mechanics. When you are doing truly exceptional work and reach an audience, with luck and tenacity, then you may both be rewarded. Truly, a peculiar activity! But in the meantime, we are all citizens, trying to make sense of our lives. Art is important, not just special.
I hope all artists have the OPINION that this career choice is extraordinary- something that is better or greater- for their individual interests, compared to others. But, don’t confuse opinion for fact. This occupation is commonplace (ordinary). We’re everywhere. If you don’t believe me, take a look at MCA’s Economic Impact Study. http://www.mncitizensforthearts.org/learn/artsresearch/artists-count-2/ I’m one of those artists and simply being one doesn’t make me any better, greater or more special than anyone else.
I have two-and-a-half short thoughts about the use of the word ‘special’ in reference to artists:
1) it indicates elitism. Elitism discludes the rest of society outside of the elitist circle. It’s hard to make friends when you are an elitist.
2) it indicates entitlement. Either everyone or no one is entitled to make art. The notion of entitlement degrades art. Only hard work allows a person to act as an artist.
2.5) Hard work is not special. It is both necessary and common, and therefore ordinary.
Agreed!
Thank you for sharing this and helping me understand the distinction between “special” and “important.”
Hi, Laura, I fell into your comment stream because Kristin Brighton provided a link to your article on Facebook, and your words, in turn, inspired a lot more thought than I usually invest in reading material. To me, that outcome simply underscored your own creative skills!
Because my background appears to be so different from those implied by the answers in your resulting discussion, however, I’m wondering if my adding a couple of thoughts might be useful.
For one thing, when you hear the word “special” outside of this particular context, what’s your automatic first reaction? I’d be very surprised if it isn’t something in this vein: “special child … special needs … autistic … challenged …. lacking or limited in some way.” I can see that this alternate meaning might very well apply to van Gogh, but could it also be keeping you from communicating what you’re trying to say — which apparently may or may not include a pedestal? Could you be amusing some people you’re trying to impress?
For another, I’m wondering whether anyone in your community has ever run across Earl Newsome’s old principles of persuasion (the “art” of which is basically what you have to do when drumming up support for art). Paraphrased, the principles say that for people to be persuaded, they must:
1. Identify with the subject/issue/approach/whatever.
2. Understand it (i.e., people cannot support that which they do not understand).
3. Get it from a reliable (or sometimes just famous or identified-with) source.
4. Get it along with a suggested action — preferably something easy and, even more preferably, something they suggest themselves.
Laura, I suspect your approach is addressing principle No. 1. Other than Chris’ suggestion of targeted messages, however, that’s as far as the discussion seems to have progressed along this line.
I suspect your getting any further could be difficult, because to succeed in persuasion (and education and training and opinion changing), you have to know as much if not more about people than you do about your subject — people individually and sociologically (and demographically, economically,etc.). Now, that’s what I’d call a lifelong learning project, even though some lucky folk do take “reading” people to a near-artistic level!
Complicating your task could be another thing I suspect: I would lay money that if you and everyone you must work with were to take a Meyers-Briggs test, you’d find it’s surprising that you can even begin to talk to each other. Big divide: The linear vs. the intuitive thinkers. Another big divide: Those who draw strength from others and those who draw it from within themselves. Divide three: Those whose bottom line is people and those whose bottom line is the bottom line. Divide four: People who need closure and those who embrace process.
Can you guess which sides hold the majority of Americans? They certainly aren’t mine, and I suspect they aren’t yours, either. Another challenge!
Thank you for being careful with words. You were careful in defiing special, important, and ordinary. These words are often laden with personal meaning that goes undefined and therefor confuses the issue being discussed. It is easier to know the work of an artist when we experience it.
Although there is a lot of interesting discussion here, it occurs to me that we might have missed the correct noun from the beginning. If we switch from “artists” to “arts” in our consideration, many things seems clearer to me.
I believe the arts are special. That should make a difference in decisions that are made.
[...] thoughtful and provocative comments on Laura Zabel’s thoughtful and provocative post “The Importance of Being Ordinary.” In this post, Bill Cleveland of the Center for the Study of Art and Community responds [...]
Thank you for your thoughts. Great way to put it! It is humorous (read annoying) sometimes when I hear peers in my field squabble over self-proclaimed titles.
Also, your post made me think of a great spoken word piece by my friend Chris August, and since I know the folks over at Springboard tend to like a video or two from time to time, here is a link (don’t worry, the audio gets better when he actually starts the poem):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDrZjLSvEJ4