Avoiding the Issue

thanks for your valuable insights from the artist's perspective, Kim
i think the crucial difference at this time between artists and arts journalists isn't a will and drive to do the work because we feel it's important to get it out there. most of us do that anyway, without worrying about turning a profit. If that weren't the case, i wouldn't be blogging five days a week about culture at ArtsJournal! But we still need to sustain ourselves. In the past, we've had newspapers/magazines/radio stations/tv networks/book deals to support our endeavors. But that's not necessarily the case anymore. Artists are used to looking for and getting grants to support their work. But arts journalists don't yet have that option (only the Warhol Foundation routinely supports arts writers in the visual arts.) that, i think, is the main difference between arts journalists and artists attempting to get their work out there today. and this is the question that the summit partially tried and generally failed to address.

I attended the opening night of an opera just a few weeks ago, and dropped in on the press reception during the intermission. There were a lot of people there. I began informally asking reporters I knew whether they were filing a story or not. Very depressing results. Some vague talk of potential feature stories, one of the best reviewers I know reduced to blogging for free, but very few actually filing a review for a traditional daily. Lots of handwringing and too many gifted reviewers out of work. Maybe the issue-skirting you noticed is just an admission: the era of f/t arts journalists earning a living wage is passing. Certainly it's not a legitimate career-choice anymore insofar as there really isn't a 'field' large enough to support an influx of journalists. On the contrary, skilled and educated writers are leaving or being forced out. Lots of supply and not so much demand.

As an artist I listened to The Summit with interest, because I feel it is important to understand what was going on in the field which makes or breaks the work of artists. Throughout, I kept feeling saddness in the struggling tone. It seemd to me so many arts journalist were wanting to be handed all the answers about where their careers were headed.

It seems to me as journalists you are taught and used to working with a rigid business model - which, in your case, has become outdated. As writers, however, you have to be creative and compelling remaining open to the possiblities. I am thinking maybe The Summit was a bit ahead of the times in expecting participants to understand they needed a new way of thinking about their work rather than a new business model to follow. The participants, on the other hand, wanted to continue working in the way they knew how and wanted to be told were to find paying work! This is the easy way, in any case. Working artist have struggled with this throughout history and seem to understand the importance of remaining fluid, being ready to grasp the opportunities when they arise (even when the opportunity comes in the form of great challenges). Could it be one of the gifts of this time is arts journalists (or any journalist) who writes because not doing so is not an option, is being able to help the general public to understand the struggle of the creative life and challenges artists face each day? Clearly it seems to me saying it and truly living it to fully express the feelings are two different things. Asking what the opportunities are in the struggle often brings tremendous insight. With most creative fields just scratching the surface and having good technique isn't everything. One has to dig deep within themselves to find out what they need to know. Should arts journalists begin to dig?

Then again, maybe I missed the whole point!

Having more of these conversations -- or continuing the discussion the NAJP began -- might be valuable, provided the in the discussion are fully vested in what the discussion is about. Neither Gringas nor Marrow had anything to say to those of us who toil in arts journalism. This could have been known before they were invited to waste an hour for us all, and others might have taken their place in the discussion. It may not have been the fault of these panelists -- she clearly isn't involved in funding at the level we need to hear about, and his assumptions, however realistic, aren't about changing the future as much as profiting from what's happening now. I do question the NAJP's focus throughout the summit on new media installations rather than content providers hoping to survive. Had I known that was the topic, I probably wouldn't have spent four hours watching and blogging. This was a summit for managers and entrepreneurs of new media platforms, rather than creators of arts journalism.