11 May 2011

An answer to "Where Are We Now?"

The "Where are we now?" interview series will soon draw to a close, and the time has come to begin pondering answers to the question. Over the last year, I have learned a lot from all of these wonderful painters, sculptors, writers, actors, directors, conductors, arts managers, and arts promoters. My regular bi-monthly article on Curator this month is one attempt to survey and summarize what I have learned. I'm sure I will make many other attempts in the months to come.

Please read the article over on Curator, then come back and leave your comment here or on the interview(s) of interest. And please come back again for the next few interviews over the next month or so before we shut it down. Thanks!


mehitchcock said...

Michael Hitchcock- I like the old-fashioned image of the lone genius inviting you to witness and facillitate crowd-sourced collaborative arts. I think the image points to something I have been feeling faithful about: an intellectual era that can look at two p...aradigms and, instead of choosing the BETTER one, has the language and tools to choose the appropriate paradigm for the desired results. (an era where the expert, the crowd, and the untested genius amateur each can understand precisely what gifts are being offered.)

Iambic Admonit-Michael: Not sure I understand. Could you give me some examples, maybe, of what you're saying?

Michael Hitchcock- It's very tricky to verbalize. The solitary genius is better at seeing farther, the business savy i-phoner (to paraphrase) is better at getting more people to see what they see. Both paradigms are valuable, both encourage arts, and we seem to be entering an era where they can coexist and be used as tools instead of being chosen between. I don't know if this is clearer.

Iambic Admonit-That is clearer. Thank you. Do you have an example of one of each -- an actual artist-creator-type person (preferably famous enough I'd know them) who fits each category I've set up? And are you sure it's not more of a generational distinction? And do you think the lonelier type will continue to survive economically? I'm curious.

Michael Hitchcock-I think Charlie Kaufman, David O. Russel, and Darren Aronofsky are more the lone genius type while Christopher Nolan, Wes Anderson, the Cohen Brothers, and Ben Stiller are more the public genius. (But there may be other interpretations.) I ...don't have a good answer for if it's generaltional or not (though I used only filmmakers closer to our age), I believe it's not, but I am swayable. As for the lonlier type, there will always be a market for those lone souls who see further. The web makes it easier than ever to live sustainably in a niche market. But when the trend changes, only the very best (or very best connected) of the loners will survive.

Bonnie said...

found your blog on a rabbit trail and have loved reading it. I teach the literature-aesthetics-writing class in a Humanities course as a tutorial to homeschoolers. I was at IAM's Encounter's in March. Do check out Makoto Fujimura's Refractions on Emily Dickinson on his main site under writing!


Iambic Admonit said...

Thanks, Bonnie! I'm glad you found me. Please do read around and leave a few comments on posts that interest you.

I tried to find the piece you mentioned by Mako and couldn't. Would you send me the direct link? Thanks!