Your assignment for this week:
(1) Post a comment on the Week 1 page about our Loop El tour and Prof. Michael’s comments about Chicago.
(2) Print out the Project 1 instruction sheet and do the autobiography assignment – due for Class #2.
(3) Read selection from Rainer Maria Rilke’s “Letters to a Young Poet.“
(4) Read “The Function of Artists In Society,” Van Larr, Timothy, and Diepeveen, Leonard, in Active Sites: Art as Social Interaction.
(5) Read “The Art of Crossing the Street,” Carol Becker, Art Journal.
Presentations from this class:
The Art of Crossing the Street Weblog 
I’m not able to access “letters to a Young Poet”
Clicking on the link above opens a Word2003 document. If you are having trouble, email me at tom@tresser.com and I can email you a PDF version.
My favorite part of today’s class was the music played in the background during the first half of class. It was a nice little pick-me-up for a morning class.
I felt that today’s discussion about statistics drew some repetitive responses. It seemed as though some people were talking just to talk instead of bringing up new ideas. I think one of the reasons so few ideas were actually expressed is that people were thinking too hard about a subject that has a simple answer: money.
Creating, attending, and accessing art and artistic events costs money. In most cases the extent of your education either limits or expands your career options, therefore limiting or expanding your financial income. Your financial income limits or expands your recretional options including going to a musical or museum.
On a different note, I thought it was more difficult to listen to the speaker on the phone rather than one in person. When there is no one to look at it makes it a little hard to focus.
i agree that the music in the background was a nice element to add to class, but i caught myself paying more attention to that then the discussion.
i feel that the exercise we did after looking at the stereotypes and myths of artists was a little incomplete. i wouldve liked to draw more conclusions or simply discuss more about what our charts said about us, as artists, humans in general, and the time that were living in.
I enjoyed when everyone started taling about their personal experiences with leaving school. I personally was encouraged somewhat. My parents and friend would never really understand the work that I put though and effort into but would love paintings and drawing that were just done as asignment for classes. I really like the process of evaluating an artist’s impact on today’s society.
I was really disappointed by this class. Last week was so interesting and interactive and, I think, progressive in a way. I was really left affected by it. This week really didn’t impact me though. Like others have already said, being able to persue art is really all about money. But the coversation was so inconclusive. I was also disappointed by how little it had to do with the ideas expressed during and in response to last weeks class. Instead of focusing on how few Americans lives are influenced by art, let’s talk about how to make art accesible to those people with little oppotunity to explore it.
I definitely agree that this week was a little disheartening after last week’s adventure. I’m going to assume that since we are going to art school, most of us are right-brain thinkers and don’t do as well with statistics and charts. I understand that we can’t be out and about for every class, but I thought that the lecture classes would at least have more discussion or varied activities.
There were a few things I enjoyed about this week’s class. It was cool to hear from the Dean, and to listen to how everyone in the class got to SAIC. I’m definitely looking forward to this semester and when we start doing the group projects.
I agree with what others said. Is was a bit disappointing than the first week class. I know that However, I did like the short “conversation” we had with the Dean; it was interesting how the Dean thought about young artists and art inside and outside of the art world. I wish I could participate more and talk more for the next classfor some people it’s hard to ask questions and participate in front of the class but last week, the class was very quiet and very passive in a way.
i actually disagree with what people are saying. i very much enjoyed this class, and though it was a lot of “left brain” thinking i.e. charts and graphs… i still found the subject matter very intresting. i also enjoyed seeing the statistics of how art plays a role in society, because prior to this i was very iggnorant on the subject. i do think that having a speaker over the phone was a little difficult, and made it hard to stay focused on what he was saying. as well, i agree with meeso in saying the class was passive and quiet, which makes the discussions a little difficult… but im hoping this will cease once we all become more comfortable around eachother.
The conversations regarding the readings were not bad. I think that by breaking into smaller groups, we would get the opportunity to discuss ideas in greater detail, and for those shy people, voice and opinion; and we would get to know others in the class.
As for the exercise, I am not sure what the geometric shape indicated. That everyone is different? Or that as we are all artists, we are all similar and fit the stereotypes …
The phone conversation broke the class up, and provided a nice change, but I think that giving the speaker a context would have generated more interest. There was some lead up … that we would be speaking to someone over the phone … but we were not told who, until just before the phone was dialed. This made it difficult to engage and ask questions.
Hopefully the discussion this week will be stimulating … I think that the article touches on some interesting topics … And I look forward to hearing some ‘great tunes’!
I think that last weeks class covered a lot of ground. We seemes to hover over the relationship between making art and financing art, and the way in which it drives an artist socially and conceptually. The discussion of steriotypes seemed to stem from an artist satisfying a social identity as a commodity, independant, or activist. The Graph and Pie Chart presentation also skimmed the top of the developing economic theme. However I feel that a lot of the information was not really pertinent to our situation (in pursuit of a fine arts or design career) It seemed to hint a discussion of Art as an elitist comercial entity, but it was sortof confused when we started looking at the population demographics in a “CREATIVE Feild” which included softwear, invention, and manyother prolific financial networks. Was this intended to motivate the class? I think that it would have been adventageous to set aside a half hour at the end of class for discussion/ reflection on all the topics that we have touched on and make an attempt to clear up any questions or loose ends that come out of the lectures, presentations, and readings.
I feel like a lot of issues were illuded to but not really attended to.
Also, I feel like some of the assignments as well as the general approach toward the class can be patronizing. I feel like I am talked down to in the lecture and activities and there is little to no space for a collaboration of student perspectives. The Autobio project was like a character building activity I did in middle school, and besides the visual aid I dont see how I can apply this information. Anyway I am hoping that these comments are not misconstrued as antagonistic and Im optomistic that eveyone’s feedback can be projected into future classes.
I felt slightly confused by some of the discussions relating to artists and the statistics that were presented and what we were suppose to take out of it. I enjoyed the class discussions and appreciated everyones opinions and imput. I agree that although the Deans conversation was extremely insightful, it was more difficult to focus without having him present. I am looking foward to our next class and what it entails.
statistics scare the shit out of me… did anyone know that 46% of bike accidents are caused by people riding bikes that are too large for their size. … anyways I kinda got lost in the statistics related to artist in chicago and the discussion on the amount of people whom pracitce the arts in there life… i do feel everyone should atleast give the arts a chance… then again paper pushing is an art in its own right.. and so is flippen burgers… a future i see for myself.
I agree with a lot of what is being said here in that the second class was a bit less exciting than the first. I thought the artist stereotype reading was very engaging, I found that I was trying to put myself into a stereotype or myth before we did the activity, which did seem a little pointless. It was great that we were able to talk to the Dean and where he came from and how he got to be in such a high position.
He seemed like a pretty normal guy, easy to relate to in a way, but yet you could tell how motivated he was to succeed in the art world.
I do wish we would have been told we were going to talk to the Dean beforehand, maybe through this site, because we were just kind of sitting there with nothing to say. It was kind of embarrassing.
Anyway I hope to start getting into some challenging group activities soon.
It was great that we had a conversation with dean from the office. Conversation was very interesting about being a young artist in America. Also I liked Geroge Baselitz quote, “The art is not reposible to anyone..” It seems like there is no social roles in the art society ;however, people are still assuming social roles if artists put works out there. Lastly, creativity economy industries powerpoint was impressive such as, size of creative economy work fare.
I liked the music in the background however, it was bothering me. Anyway, the song made our class atmosphere better. Also, I enjoyed the time that we were listening the Deans conversation and the presentation.
I’m going to agree with a lot of the comments here and say that I was also highly disappointed with last week’s class. We were presented with all of these figures and statistics, and then we didn’t really talk about them at all. A few people made some comments, but I feel like those comments were brushed aside in order to go on with the powerpoint presentation. This was really disappointing, since this is an English seminar, and in my experience, seminars tend to involve more critical discussion and less lecture. I like how somehow above suggested that we break into smaller dicsussion groups, since the class is so large.
I think the biggest thing that was missing from the lecture/discussion was any mention of privilege when it comes to why fewer people of color participate in the arts, especially going to art school. It is a HUGE privilege to be able to dedicate all that time and money to learn to make art and to enter a field that does not automatically ensure that one will make a lot of money. When you are hungry and when you are tired from working so much just to pay the bills, you’re not necessarily going to think about art or going to art school. It’s Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in action in larger society. One must have their basic needs met (such as food, water, shelter, security, employment) before one can even begin to consider self-actualization (the highest rung in Maslow’s hierarchy) which includes things such as creativity and problem-solving. Art is a privilege. And I think it’s fairly obvious that in our society white people hold the most privilege.
Anyway, I want more critical discussions about important social issues to happen in class. I think it would also be helpful to create a safe space, of acceptance and tolerance, in the class in order to foster more dialogue, since I, for one, have sometimes felt uncomfortable voicing my thoughts.
I found the information provided by the graphs and charts interesting and fairly straightforward. Is it safe to say that the statistics on the correlation between income, education, and resources were not a surprise to most of us? I think Kate summed things up nicely in her response, especially when she says the subject has a simple answer: money. That’s true for many things in our society (look at some of the heated debates over issues such as health care), not just art. Perhaps some of these statistics could be used as a starting point for more in depth conversation and a greater exploration of how they relate to the class and to each of us individually.
For me, the highlight of the class was the discussion on the social roles of the artist. There seemed to be several people in the class that could relate their own experience to the “starving artist” myth. It is not only opposing views that generate the best conversations. Sometimes sharing common experiences can be equally rewarding.
I think the use of statistics was informal, but I believe in this class, we should be concentrating more on an hands on approach.
We discussed the roles and stereotype society portrays artists as, but can we really change these embelished ideals without taking initiative and interacting with local, national, and even international public.
I believe the reason for categorizing artists as we discussed is partially due to the simple fact that the public is not educated about the lifestyle that the modern artists live.
Although this topic is quite debatable, one thing I found to be a strong point within the weeks class is the conversation we had with the Dean. With this hands on approach, I believe we can develop more interesting and thought provoking classes, therefore giving us the intent to interact and approach topics in a more vivid manner.
I’ve had almost a week to mull this over and I was wondering if anyone else noticed that people in i think it was the 35,000 a year to 50,000 a year income bracket participated less in the arts than the bracket just below them in every category. The trend was consistent otherwise: higher income, more art. so what’s going on with 35 -50 G crowd?
I thought the discussion about the artist myths was too generalized. It would have been more interesting to look at specific artists more closely who embodied these myths or even propted their existence.
Liked the Howard Zinn though.
I didn’t notice that the 35,000 a year to 50,000 a year income bracket participated less in the art than the bracket below them in every category. I agree with Matt that the artist myths was too generalized. and it would’ve been better if we had talked about specific artists more closely especially that who make large money:)
I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that people in those price ranges have to work hard to earn that money/ earn vacation time. They don’t really have the extra money after all of their necessary expenses to pay for expensive art supplies. And I think that a lot of those people tend to be young in terms of their careers. They are trying very hard just to make it to the next level. Just a thought.