Jul 3, 2023·edited Jul 3, 2023Liked by Franklin Einspruch
One is struck by the weakness of mind and perversion of purpose unabashedly on display here, put forth as if it were not only reasonable but virtuous. The absence of any sense of impropriety or related embarrassment, let alone shame, is astonishing, to put it kindly. The word lobotomized comes to mind.
I too was appalled by the restructuring of the Individual Grant program. And I stated so although far less articulately than you in the comment section of the questionnaire. It is no less than “ a trophy for all participants” mentality that ignores the art for the sake of the artists identity. It further disrespects the intelligence of artists and curators in general, as if we are unable to think outside the western canons of art. After all Lucy R. Lippard’s brilliant and groundbreaking book Mixed Blessings: New Art in a Multicultural America came out 23 years ago! Artists have not been ignorant of cultural and genre diversity, its just the institutions that has found profits in the exhibition and sale of white (mostly male) artists, who have continued the bias - that is until they have been finally and recently been called out. And now it seems the pendulum has swung in the extreme. But I am an “old”, white, CIS gender female who sees my chances of ever finally getting a grant disappear. I struggled for decades to find a MCC category that included my ever changing mixed media approach, and now I find identity politics has put me on the sidelines again. If after more than 40 years of exhibiting this sounds like sour grapes, it is.
The notion that the Western Renaissance ought not be the measure of all other art may have been a radical claim when Worringer made it in 1906, but to treat it as such now is silly, and now to regard the West as an anti-example is precisely the wrong conclusion. You are right to be annoyed.
"As hard as it is for fine artists to garner support, the revised individual grants at the MCC would pit them against a wide swath of applied artists and entertainers who can, unlike the fine artists, gig in their vocation. Philanthropically this makes no sense."
How the equity agenda smells appears to be of no concern to those pushing it. They seem much more focused on how it looks, at least to a certain audience. I'm somehow reminded of Billy Crystal's old Fernando character on SNL and his persistent emphasis on looking good over anything else.
One is struck by the weakness of mind and perversion of purpose unabashedly on display here, put forth as if it were not only reasonable but virtuous. The absence of any sense of impropriety or related embarrassment, let alone shame, is astonishing, to put it kindly. The word lobotomized comes to mind.
I too was appalled by the restructuring of the Individual Grant program. And I stated so although far less articulately than you in the comment section of the questionnaire. It is no less than “ a trophy for all participants” mentality that ignores the art for the sake of the artists identity. It further disrespects the intelligence of artists and curators in general, as if we are unable to think outside the western canons of art. After all Lucy R. Lippard’s brilliant and groundbreaking book Mixed Blessings: New Art in a Multicultural America came out 23 years ago! Artists have not been ignorant of cultural and genre diversity, its just the institutions that has found profits in the exhibition and sale of white (mostly male) artists, who have continued the bias - that is until they have been finally and recently been called out. And now it seems the pendulum has swung in the extreme. But I am an “old”, white, CIS gender female who sees my chances of ever finally getting a grant disappear. I struggled for decades to find a MCC category that included my ever changing mixed media approach, and now I find identity politics has put me on the sidelines again. If after more than 40 years of exhibiting this sounds like sour grapes, it is.
The notion that the Western Renaissance ought not be the measure of all other art may have been a radical claim when Worringer made it in 1906, but to treat it as such now is silly, and now to regard the West as an anti-example is precisely the wrong conclusion. You are right to be annoyed.
"As hard as it is for fine artists to garner support, the revised individual grants at the MCC would pit them against a wide swath of applied artists and entertainers who can, unlike the fine artists, gig in their vocation. Philanthropically this makes no sense."
This.
How the equity agenda smells appears to be of no concern to those pushing it. They seem much more focused on how it looks, at least to a certain audience. I'm somehow reminded of Billy Crystal's old Fernando character on SNL and his persistent emphasis on looking good over anything else.