Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro
the thing Chicago has in spades compared to other, more "culturally relevant" cities is cheap real estate relatively close to downtown plus all the trappings of a major metropolis. getting some kind incentive for artists, musicians, cinematographers, and creatives of all types to come here and ply their trades while would do wonders to start moving the needle back to a place of cultural prominence. why should tiny, expensive Austin (for example) in Texas of all places have more cultural appeal to people under 40 than Chicago???
marothisu does a great job illustrating the under-the-hood stats that Chicago is still an economic powerhouse, but corporate consultants, lawyers, and banking don't really inspire much in the popular media that make people want to visit a place. Neither do very trivial factoids about 19th century history, but that seems to be where the Chicago marketing team is hanging their cap...
|
I think that's a complicated thing regarding artists. I'll get semi personal. Expecting artists to behave a certain way or look a certain way is just anti to everything. When I see people all conforming to one another and then claiming they're an "artiste" I cringe. I have been involved in art my whole life as I used to even tour around part of the US as a singer and also having a sister graduating from art school plus a ton of my close family involved in various ways. My sister especially is very anti areas like Brooklyn, Wicker Park, etc because she thinks they're all fake artists and for some of them I'd tend to agree. I'm not one to judge though totally. There's just this aire of elitism there like you *have* to look and behave a certain way like "an artist".[/I] I have a few friends in Chicago who I consider to be very talented artists. One of them has massive muscles and looks like a meathead and another one looks like a movie star and wears trendy suits around. Their art is very vivid and a little out there at times though. I have another friend here who used to be a touring jazz musician before he got into a computer career. I have another friend who is an executive for a sizable multi national corporation who went to the top US art school and still very involved in the area with creating art. But if you see his title and maybe even him in public nowadays, many people might assume otherwise.
This guy is one of the most prolific modern artists IMO (Bruce Nauman). He lives on a ranch about 25 miles from Santa Fe, NM. I guarantee if he stepped foot in Brooklyn or Wicker Park or whatever like this, people wouldn't even believe he's an artist unless they recognized him somehow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLWsrfa3tMU
This guy? One of the most prolific guitarists in the world:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid...91327452349392
Point is - there's tons of people walking around who are artists not just here, but pretty much everywhere.. but we all have the idea of what an artist should look and act like, and we just assume there's not as many as the reality. The important thing to do in the city is give outlets for people of all types of art persuasions whether museums, organizations, studios, music venues, practice spaces, meeting spaces, etc. It's easy to make a catalog of those things as they operate as businesses and whatever, but assessing a place's art prowess based on anything else is a really slippery slope expecting artists to magically look and act a certain way. Outlets are important though, and also having inspiring places is important too.
As someone else mentioned too, it has to be an organic thing. But remember art is also very personal to everyone. Just because I am a musician for example doesn't mean that all I want to do with my time is be outside of home at a music venue or playing in front of an audience anymore. Just as well at home drawing, playing guitar/piano or singing.
Threaded Mode