Jumper

Diane Ragsdale on what the arts do and why

Archives for December 2010

Slow Food: a model for the arts and culture sector?

Capay heirloom tomatoes at Slow Food Nation

In 1986, a McDonald’s opened near the historic Spanish Steps in Rome. It was the inciting incident that prompted culinary writer Carlo Petrini to launch Slow Food, a grassroots movement and counter-revolution to the fast food industry, which had ‘revolutionized’ dining beginning in the early twentieth century. I’ve been wondering the past couple years whether the ‘high arts’ sphere in the US might benefit from modeling some of Slow Food’s strategies. For example:

  • Through festivals and events, Slow Food connects everyday people (not just ‘major donors’ or ‘underserved youth’) directly with the farmers and artisans from their community because it believes if you have a relationship with your local poultry farmer, and understand how he raises his birds, you may be more likely to give him your business rather than Tyson.
  • Slow Food knows that many taste buds have become accustomed to fast food so it helps adults and kids reawaken their senses and study all aspects of food by offering Taste Education events that are an integral and enjoyable aspect of what they do (as opposed to supplementary and pedantic, patronizing, or cursory). 
  • Slow Food values what you do in your own kitchen as much as what Alice Waters does at Chez Panisse. It tries to encourage (rather than ignore or dismiss) your inner Alice Waters.  Slow Food restaurants are but one component of a comprehensive strategy for changing the relationship between people and food. 

Indeed, to fight the impact of big agribusiness Slow Food’s primary strategy was not to open upscale restaurants and send out brochures announcing: “A world-class meal featuring olive oil-soaked ladotiri cheese from Greece, lentils from Abruzzi, sausages made from Sienese wild boar raised in Tuscany, and a dessert featuring Vesuvian apricots – $140 per person.”

If it had, one can imagine the implicit message to the people tossing the brochure in the trashcan on their way to grab a burger at the diner on the corner might have been: “We think you will probably feel more comfortable eating somewhere else.” 

Here’s what I see:  Plenty of Boomers and others who have ‘no time’ for the ballet are spending plenty of time growing their own herbs; browsing farmers markets, buying organic cheeses, artisanal breads, and heirloom fruits and vegetables; and preparing gourmet feasts in their Viking-stove-equipped kitchens. Others are spending the equivalent of tickets to the ballet (in time and money) dining at Slow Food restaurants. While it’s hard to know how much of this gastronomic enthusiasm can be credited to Slow Food (as opposed to other factors), the list of accomplishments on its Web site would appear to indicate that Slow Food is making headway with its revolution through food.

Can we say the same about the ‘arts and culture sector’ – particularly the ‘high end’ of it? We’ve created more organizations, but have we brought more people over to the arts cause? And what is our cause, anyway? If, like Carlo Petrini in 1989, we are faced with the difficult reality that there is declining appreciation for what we do, might we need to focus our efforts on changing the relationship between people and art? If so, can the arts achieve that goal with its current strategies?

Heirloom Tomatoes Image available under a Creative Commons license, found at Wikimedia Commons, & originally posted to Flickr by mercedesfromtheeighties at http://flickr.com/photos/51314692@N00/2812518700.

Who has access to ‘culture’? Who gets to define it?

Last week, I wrote a response to a blog by Judith Dobrzynski in which she asked, “Are we, as a country, defining the arts down?”  I essentially challenged her question. Responses to my blog varied, with one person calling my views ‘nonsense’. A few days ago, I happened to read a provocative new pamphlet by Counterpoint, the British Council’s think tank, called “Culture and Class,” which goes straight to the crux of last week’s conversation. Author John Holden describes a culture war being waged on two fronts:  the first concerns who has access to ‘culture’ (as traditionally defined) and the second concerns who gets to decide what ‘culture’ is, in the first place.

The director of Counterpoint writes in the preface to the pamphlet:  “… at a time when we know that the gap between rich and poor is at its widest, worldwide, and likely to widen as the economic recession deepens, we are entirely failing to address the direct role played by culture in perpetuating these distinctions.” Using the UK as a case study, Holden argues for a more democratic definition of culture as the first step towards a more egalitarian society.  

To achieve a more democratic culture, he asserts that two things need to happen in parallel: a shift from cultural exclusion to cultural inclusion and a shift from culture defined by a narrow elite to culture created by everyone. He then describes three different groups that affect the ability of people to participate in culture, as follows:

  • The cultural snobs are a small but still influential group, typified not only by their allegiance to certain art forms and periods, but by their insistence that only the already educated should enjoy them.
  • The neo-mandarins are ‘cultivated’ and are cultural enthusiasts who wish to share their enthusiasms with others. They believe it is patronizing to assume that anyone is incapable of understanding and enjoying culture and are keen to educate them in ‘high’ culture.
  • The new cosmopolitans respect, enjoy, and are knowledgeable about Shakespeare, Berlioz, and Fra Bartolommeo and the rest [but also] find cultural quality (meaning emotive power, intellectual stimulation, inventiveness and skill) in popular music, folk art, product design, Youtube uploads – and even in new media and film. The fact that some of these are readily embraced by masses of people and are ‘popular culture’ does not bother them. 

I was glad to see all three of these perspectives (and others) represented in the volley of comments to last week’s blog.  The conversation about how ‘culture’ (or ‘art’) is defined and who gets to define these terms is an important one; and “Culture and Class” is a stimulating text on the topic.

Somebody better call the art police.

AJ Blogger Judith Dobrzynski recently asked, “Are we, as a country, defining the arts down?” She questioned the quality of small-town festivals, the inclusion of “gastronomic arts” in arts education, and the merits of an exhibit at the Albright-Knox Gallery featuring photographs and videos of the local hockey team, the Sabres. I would respond to her question by first asking, Is it fair to categorically (and sight unseen) cite these activities as evidence of the lowering of artistic standards?

Just as you can find bad art in Manhattan, you can find great art in places like Fishcreek (WI). There’s a book by John Villani, 100 Best Small Art Towns in America, which highlights communities with terrific festivals, vibrant artist communities, or museums with impressive permanent collections.

And gastronomy? The study of the relationship between culture and food strikes me as a worthy pursuit for students and one that should not be assumed to crowd out appreciation for the “fine arts”. I also wonder whether its presence in schools reflects the reach of Slow Food — whose strategies for changing the relationship between people and food have been, in my opinion, more effective than those of the arts sector to “develop audiences.” (A topic for another day.)

Finally, while the 40th anniversary Sabres exhibition probably could be categorized as a “blockbuster”, is the reason the collection is assumed to be of low artistic quality because it has broad appeal, or because it was created as a celebration, or because we assume that photographs of hockey players and their coaches could never be artistic? 

I saw an exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum called BAM! BAM! BAM! Catching the Next Wave for 20 Years, which was, essentially, a highlights reel celebrating a festival at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. Did anyone question its merits? Of course, I watched the video while lying on a mattress inside a specially designed structure. Perhaps that’s what made it qualify as “art”?

Dobrzynski borrowed her question from a phrase, “defining deviancy down” in an article by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, which questioned whether increased crime was the result of the normalizing of deviant behavior. Beyond questioning her examples of “defining art down,” I guess I’m puzzled by the “threat” implied in Dobrzynski’s question; I’m not sure I understand who or what is harmed, exactly, by broadening the definition of art. 

I agree with Bill Ivey, who has challenged the perpetuation of a Western European artistic hierarchy in the US (in his book Arts, Inc.); or as I have taken to adapting his idea and saying—if we want to reach new audiences we may need to stop hammering so hard on the idea that Bach is intrinsically better than Björk, who is intrinsically better than my brother, who plays in a pro-am banjo club in St. Louis. Greatness can be found in the nonprofit, commercial, or amateur art realms. (And, of course, so can mediocrity.) Does it take anything away from Bach if I also consider both Björk and my brother’s banjo playing to be artistic?

PS – Sincere thanks to all who weighed in on my posts on dynamic pricing and economic impact studies and helped to generate some really interesting debates. If you haven’t checked out the comments posted by others, I encourage you to do so as they are well worth reading. 

Screaming woman image licensed from Shutterstock.com and modifed by DER.

Return to top of page

an ArtsJournal blog

This blog published under a Creative Commons license