AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[enragedcamel]

Originally Posted by Geographer

History tell us otherwise.

It really doesn't. Every single example you gave:

a) was about a single civilization
b) occurred within a relatively short timespan

Anthroponegic climate change, in extremely stark contrast, is:

a) a planet-wide problem
b) a problem that started with human industrial activity, has been ongoing since, and will continue to occur until after you and I are dead

In addition, the entire global economy, and the societies and cultures in it, continue to encourage activities that make the problem worse - activities such as having kids. Because those kids, like you, will constantly consume resources and perpetuate the current system and status quo. In fact, this is the very basis of your argument, that one should have kids to keep (our current) societies and civilizations going. And that's precisely why it's deeply and fundamentally flawed.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Geographer

The decision to have children is a vote of confidence in the future and humanity, a selfless act of generosity to society, and a duty for all couples reasonably capable of having children.

There are a multitude of reasons why people don't have children. Having or not having children does not make one more or less of a person. Suggesting that it's one's "duty" is quite ridiculous and asinine. Children are a lot of work and take great commitment. The children of society will not be better if their parents' hearts are not truly in it.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

The undeniable fact of the matter is that Boomers had it easy. They enjoyed an incredible era of growth and prosperity here in the USA during the post WW2 era (brought on by the actual sacrifices of their parents and grandparents during the world wars), while other nations were too busy rebuilding their economies, infrastructure and population. They raped the planet to build their wealth, polluted the hell out of rivers, oceans, forests and the atmosphere, and generally enjoyed the abundant fruits of their efforts without worrying too much about the consequences. Today they are the largest voting bloc, have an unprecedented concentration of wealth (and the sense of security and smugness that brings) and therefore constantly look down on and judge younger generations for not being hard-working or ambitious enough or getting married and reproducing like Boomers did back in the day.

It is, of course, complete bollocks. The world is going to hell in a hand basket, and it is easy for Boomers to ignore that and espouse optimism because most of them won't be around by the time shit really starts to hit the fan.

This is a gross mischaracterization of an entire generation. It was Pre-Boomers that raped and pillaged the environment, with the aid of a surplus of industrial machinery built-up for the war effort. There was a need for housing post-war, but the historically unprecedented solution was to cut down forests, pave over farmland and dam wild rivers to create low density suburban subdivisions and shopping malls to serve them. This development pattern mandated single occupant vehicles that spew carbon and require vast amounts of impervious cover in previously untainted watersheds. Baby Boomers were the first generation to grow up in this strange new world, but they most certainly did not invent it. Baby Boomers were children until the 1960s, when many of them became hippies in protest of their parent's choices, and founded the first environmental movements such as Earth Day. There was a lot of naivete in their 'back to land movement' and yearning for a simpler lifestyle, but their hearts were in the right place.

Baby Boomers, (as a general group, but not every individual) were guilty of opting into mass commercialization and consumer culture when they began to form families in the 1970s and 1980s, which is when the trend that started when they were children, grew to its most destructive phase. As they are entering their senior years, many are again seeking a simpler, often more urban and walkable lifestyle. Unfortunately, they are competing with GenX and Millennials for this coveted real estate, and Boomers, as a group, tend to have greater financial resources than younger generations.

What annoys me the most about the Boomer generation, are those that opted into the urban lifestyle early on (a more intelligent choice than 'back to the land') but now have turned into NIMBYs. Because they got there first, and paid relatively little for the right to live close in, they feel they have a right to keep their cohort's children and grandchildren from enjoying the benefits of an urban lifestyle.

END OF RANT

[Geographer]

Malthusians keep changing their arguments to reduce population. First they said the world was going to run out of food. That didn't happen so they said the world would run out of oil. That's not looking likely anytime soon, either. Now they're using climate change to justify population control. Climate change is a problem to be solved over a long period of time with advanced technology and lifestyle changes. Population control and decline would actually going to hurt the effort to rein in climate change because they lead to less dynamic economies and less innovation.

Humans have never had access to such advanced technologies and scientific knowledge as they have now. Civilization has never had so many brains available to solve problems. These are reasons for optimism in the future!

None of us should apologize for the advanced civilization we humans built over the last two hundred years. Industrialization and technology progress have been wonderful developments. Climate may be one side effect but the solution is to enhance and fine tune civilization to deal with it, not return to the middle ages.

Every single example you gave:

a) was about a single civilization
b) occurred within a relatively short timespan

The examples I gave were situations in which people justifiably felt a lot of fear and pessimism about their immediate and long-term health, safety, and freedom. But did they throw in the towel and abandon hope? Did they stop working, stop marrying, or stop having families? No! They held out hope for a better future and had kids knowing that they would probably grow up in better circumstances, or at least make a better world for themselves. Moving forward in the face of adversity is one of humanity's admirable traits. Millennials should encourage optimism and the can-do American spirit among themselves!

[ahealy]

Ok, this is a little sensationalized and a little dramatic BUT for the millionth time...when the hell is Austin going to get a proper modern art museum????!!!

I've been following the progress of ruby city in SA and was reminded how far ahead all other major TX cities are in this area. Has there been any chatter of.....anything?

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Ok, this is a little sensationalized and a little dramatic BUT for the millionth time...when the hell is Austin going to get a proper modern art museum????!!!

I've been following the progress of ruby city in SA and was reminded how far ahead all other major TX cities are in this area. Has there been any chatter of.....anything?

I've put a lot of thought behind this subject. I argued with my artist friends for years that Austin was FAR behind in, well ALL the fine arts really. We have an abundance of young artists (some talented, most not....but that's ok), young musicians, but not too many highly skilled, highly respected artists.

I've come to a couple conclusions.

1. Austin is a very young city.....fine art is generally patronized by older very wealthy families, endowments, companies that support art. Wealthy people have the money a top tier artist can command. I would guess that NYC spends more money on one city block of (Manhattan) on fine arts than all Austin. That's a guess, but you get the point.
2. Older cities that support the arts poach our budding artistic stars...who can blame the artist who flock to cities that can/do/will pay them handsomely for quality work.
3. The artists that are left behind are....gasp....not that great. I have nothing but local art on the walls of my home. I've commissioned a few pieces from artists that came out good and ok. One from Kathryn Goodnight, and the other from Eliza Gomez (which turned out amazing), and a few others. Most pieces we've acquired from estate sales or the places like the Art Garage, and Round Top. All that said, I'm not often impressed with what I see in local art galleries, stores, restaurants. Most of it looks immature, but that is be expected...kinda like garage bands....they have to start somewhere.
4. The relatively young population of Austin (art consumers) don't have the time, inclination, and money for art. They are studying, working, or trying to get laid.... and good for them.
5. I think in about 50-100 years, when Austin has some more Billionaires who leave huge endowments for the arts of Austin in their wills, we will get the arts scene we deserve. Till then, as long as Dallas, Houston, Chicago....Sante Fe, LA, Miami, DC, Boston, San Fran, and NYC (not to mention the rest of the GLOBAL art scene) exist as they do.....Austin will never be able to compete...the best leave for those cities who can appreciate and more importantly afford their work. And I don't blame them.

Austin is a BIG college town....but it's a college town. Those other cities are REAL cities, with decades of extremely wealthy families supporting the art scene.

I agree with you, I long for a robust local scene like SA, Houston, Dallas, shit even Marfa.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by urbancore

I've put a lot of thought behind this subject. I argued with my artist friends for years that Austin was FAR behind in, well ALL the fine arts really. We have an abundance of young artists (some talented, most not....but that's ok), young musicians, but not too many highly skilled, highly respected artists.

I've come to a couple conclusions.

1. Austin is a very young city.....fine art is generally patronized by older very wealthy families, endowments, companies that support art. Wealthy people have the money a top tier artist can command. I would guess that NYC spends more money on one city block of (Manhattan) on fine arts than all Austin. That's a guess, but you get the point.
2. Older cities that support the arts poach our budding artistic stars...who can blame the artist who flock to cities that can/do/will pay them handsomely for quality work.
3. The artists that are left behind are....gasp....not that great. I have nothing but local art on the walls of my home. I've commissioned a few pieces from artists that came out good and ok. One from Kathryn Goodnight, and the other from Eliza Gomez (which turned out amazing), and a few others. Most pieces we've acquired from estate sales or the places like the Art Garage, and Round Top. All that said, I'm not often impressed with what I see in local art galleries, stores, restaurants. Most of it looks immature, but that is be expected...kinda like garage bands....they have to start somewhere.
4. The relatively young population of Austin (art consumers) don't have the time, inclination, and money for art. They are studying, working, or trying to get laid.... and good for them.
5. I think in about 50-100 years, when Austin has some more Billionaires who leave huge endowments for the arts of Austin in their wills, we will get the arts scene we deserve. Till then, as long as Dallas, Houston, Chicago....Sante Fe, LA, Miami, DC, Boston, San Fran, and NYC (not to mention the rest of the GLOBAL art scene) exist as they do.....Austin will never be able to compete...the best leave for those cities who can appreciate and more importantly afford their work. And I don't blame them.

Austin is a BIG college town....but it's a college town. Those other cities are REAL cities, with decades of extremely wealthy families supporting the art scene.

I agree with you, I long for a robust local scene like SA, Houston, Dallas, shit even Marfa.

I agree with all of this. I just don’t understand what kind of city Austin will become down the road. I can’t really think of another large scale boom town that has the likes of google, apple, WF, etc. building and expanding all over it, and yet there is so little....culture, art or soul.

[Geographer]

Urbancore hit the nail on the head as to why Austin does not yet have a major fine arts scene. Here's a question to the board: how long will it take for Austin's rich to age and start patronizing the arts like they do in Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, and New York City? Austin has the money but it's mostly in the hands of young and middle-aged entrepreneurs and techies. As they age and set down deeper roots in Austin, they will probably start patronizing the arts.

What's the state of fine arts philanthropy in Silicon Valley?

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by ahealy

I agree with all of this. I just don’t understand what kind of city Austin will become down the road. I can’t really think of another large scale boom town that has the likes of google, apple, WF, etc. building and expanding all over it, and yet there is so little....culture, art or soul.

I think of Austin like a budding young teenager. We don't really know what Austin will turn out to be when it grows up. It will most certainly continue to grow as it always has (doubling in size every 20 years for the last 100 years)....it shows a TON of potential, and most people are rooting for it. Some wish it was a toddler still, some wish it was an infant....I've always thought those wishes say more about the people who have them than anything else.....they really just pine for their youth. We all pine for our youth at some point.

Having lived here since the mid 80's, I can honestly say this is the best time to live in Austin BY FAR. The music scene is more robust, the food scene (didn't exist really) is mind blowing compared to what it was, the art scene, as we've discussed, has a LONG way to go, but there is more shit to do, more local businesses doing their thing. I challenge anyone to dispute this. They can't. I miss Liberty Lunch too, but in the end it was another dirty bar we drank luke warm beer (craft beer didn't exist) and watched forgettable 80's bands (i cringe when I listen to most of them now) and a few mind blowing shows if we were lucky.

Clifford moved his bar all over town....he didn't care. The building was just a place for him to curate his love of delta blues.....and sell pot of course. Point is Austin has always been in a state of flux. Just like a young kid.

Once the entire CBD is built out, and most of the urban core is filled in, it will really feel like a proper city. I think we are 30-50 years away from that.

That is when we will be a bit more like a married 30 something....more responsibilities.....and still forever changing.

Right now, Austin has soul....it's just more like a "soul patch". Just hang around and watch him grow up.....I think you will like how he turns out.

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by ahealy

I agree with all of this. I just don’t understand what kind of city Austin will become down the road. I can’t really think of another large scale boom town that has the likes of google, apple, WF, etc. building and expanding all over it, and yet there is so little....culture, art or soul.

Ruby City looks like it's going to be great and I'm pretty jealous that it's in San Antonio and not here.

I don't think you're giving Austin enough credit as a producer of culture. We have two of the country's most well recognized festivals in SXSW and ACL. True, they seem to have become victims of their own success and lost a little bit of their "soul", but that's largely a subjective thing anyway. Every year I still get to go out and watch relative unknowns at SXSW and see them blow up the following year.

We still produce some good homegrown musical talent. There are always a lot of great artists here who are well respected in industry circles and a few of them break out into national acclaim. (Go Gary Clark Jr.!)

I still get the feeling that Austin punches above its weight in the fine art world as well. We're only a few years into being an actual city if we're being honest. UT definitely does most of the heavy lifting around here with the Blanton/James Turrell/Ellsworth Kelly stuff. The Contemporary has built up an interesting sculpture collection, though it's not really my thing. I thought it was cool that we got a few Ai WeiWei pieces - with one being prominently displayed downtown for a while.

I don't recall Austin ever being known for fine arts in the way that it has been for music. Even with the large influx of recent cash, it's not like that kind of scene just naturally comes with it.

The Booth/FLAG prize is only a year or two old and will take time to bear fruit. At a biennial $200k cash plus exhibitions in Austin and NYC it's apparently one of the largest of its kind.

We'll be waiting until our rich Gen X/Millenial VCs get philanthropic in their old age before we really get some great art museums.

New money cities like ours with more young energy than old billionaires tend to be exporters of culture rather than collectors anyway. I'm okay with that for now even if that means being jealous of other cities' art museums.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

I'm okay with that for now even if that means being jealous of other cities' art museums.

precisely.

I also wonder if the local artist visit these other cities and become inspired to come home and make our scene even better. I think competition is good in this way. All the artists I know (some don't like to admit it) have a jealous streak a mile wide.

[austin242]

I've always felt Austin was more of a mother and we are teenagers. It cradles new talent but doesn't necessarily have a whole lot of extra money to spend on stuff like arts yet. The children are still growing so it needs to invest in new paths for its children (roads, transit, etc). The artists need to be fostered and a place to grow but we are not ready to foster them as adults. So in that sense we the people as a whole are teenagers and the city is our mother. It takes care of what we need. When we change it will change to accommodate us. Our culture is the culture of play. We like to play. We are wild and would rather have a new park right now or a larger airport for travel than a museum. When we get older the city will decide to invest in a museum. Although we are about to be young adults so we may need a museum sooner than later to expand our minds.

[We vs us]

Austin's always been about more of a punk/hippy/DIY asthetic, anyway. We produce culture by the bucketload -- I mean, we're reknowned for it, to be truthful -- but it's all "downscale" culture. Indy film, indy music, food trucks, murals rather than oil paintings, etc. We keep it weird, which as an ethos pushes back pretty strongly against the finer arts.

The challenge is that people flock here specifically because we're downscale/weird. It's what makes us authentic in the eyes of so many of our guests/transplants. There're a lot of incentives pushing against getting nicer and richer in our arts. Not that it can't happen, but I think the success of what we've been doing for years is as much of a drag on the bigger stuff than us being a fledgling city.

[the Genral]

Interesting discussion and analogies. Mothers, children, teenagers. I think Austin is like a box of chocolates, except with pictures and descriptions so you know exactly what you are getting. Its become....predictable. You come here....oh you want music? There's where the music is. You want food? There's where the food is. You want to get drunk? There's where the party'ers go. You want to jog? There's where the joggers go. Oh you heard about the bats? There's where the bats are. What? You want to divulge yourself in the sciences, fine arts, great zoos, aquariums, planetariums, history museums? There's where the music, food, booze, bats, and joggers are. No one is listening.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Interesting discussion and analogies. Mothers, children, teenagers. I think Austin is like a box of chocolates, except with pictures and descriptions so you know exactly what you are getting. Its become....predictable. You come here....oh you want music? There's where the music is. You want food? There's where the food is. You want to get drunk? There's where the party'ers go. You want to jog? There's where the joggers go. Oh you heard about the bats? There's where the bats are. What? You want to divulge yourself in the sciences, fine arts, great zoos, aquariums, planetariums, history museums? There's where the music, food, booze, bats, and joggers are. No one is listening.

EXACTLY! You always know what to say, Genral.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, Austin242....but that analogy doesn't fully add up for me these days. SA, Houston & Dallas definitely house more artists than Austin. Austin does not really foster the arts. I see very little creativity for a city which prides itself on nurturing "creatives". I've lived here for most of my life and just don't feel connected with the city's message. Maybe this just happens over time or with age? I certainly change my mind often, which could come from being spoiled with such a prosperous city!

Either way, I am very hopeful this is just an ebb and flow kinda thing....kicking the can down the road, perhaps Austin will trade the acoustic guitar statues, jogging, and the non-existent weird for an opulent marbled skin.

[KevinFromTexas]

I've always assumed that the reasons that Austin doesn't have major art museums are for the same reasons that we don't have the typical type of zoo that most cities have, and that is that our culture has always been different. Austin doesn't lack a talent for art and we aren't starved for it either. This city is wildly talented, even when it comes to art. It's just that the type of art and the way Austinites have traditionally enjoyed it isn't what you'll find in a museum. It's mostly homemade and more often than not found either outdoors or in other public venues, like restaurants even. It's hard to market a museum with a dress code with fine works of art to a community that is totally content with the quirky forms of art that you'll find in most of the front yards in our city that you can enjoy any time.

Likewise, the reason we don't have the typical type of zoo that other cities have is that Austin would rather not confine animals to an enclosure. Again, it goes back to our old hippie roots, like it or not. The one zoo we do have is much more modest with a more dedicated goal in being a sanctuary for animals.

I come from an artistic family on both sides of it. Several of my aunts and uncles paint, mostly for personal enjoyment. My grandfather, though, studied art in Germany and was an accomplished artist who used oil paints and charcoal mostly. One of my uncles also manages an art gallery in Arizona.

Two of the things I wish Austin had was an aquarium and a planetarium. Aquariums seem to have fewer controversies with the way marine life are kept. And the idea of a planetarium is great for education as well as recreation. It's really something I want the most in Austin actually.

[wwmiv]

I echo Kevin. Also, I want the Texas Music Museum.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I've always assumed that the reasons that Austin doesn't have major art museums are for the same reasons that we don't have the typical type of zoo that most cities have, and that is that our culture has always been different. Austin doesn't lack a talent for art and we aren't starved for it either.

I agree that it similar to the reason a city like Austin doesn't have a real zoo or aquarium, or even planetarium. But I'm not sure it's specific to the Austin culture. I think it's more that our city grew up after the era of building big museums, grand theaters for the arts, etc. Sure, there probably are new ones being built all over the country, but nothing on the level of the ones in the older cities that were started long ago. There was a time when culture was consumed in different ways than what we mostly do now (screens) and access was more limited -- thus it was more important for philanthropists to ensure that a city and its residents had access to the things like the arts, science and history. Now access is not an issue.

I'm not saying these things will go away completely like encyclopedias. But I do think the importance of building them in large scale has diminished. Like libraries.

[zrx299]

Austin is more interested in murals and music than hoity-toity curated museums.

And that is a good thing, in my opinion. I see no reason to try and recreate a half-ass version of things that exist in other well established art locales. We should continue to embrace and protect what has flourished here.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Austin is more interested in murals and music than hoity-toity curated museums.

And that is a good thing, in my opinion. I see no reason to try and recreate a half-ass version of things that exist in other well established art locales. We should continue to embrace and protect what has flourished here.

It's great that this brings up the discussion of murals and whatnot. I do think we've plateaued in that department. There's nothing hoity-toity about established art centers...now, my comment about a "marbled opulent skin" on the other hand....

All in all, these are things that make people happy while visiting town, so who am I to poo poo on that. I just cringe at it