This post is primarily for readers in Grenada. On a recent trip home to Grenada I visited the Esplanade Mall in St. George's where the terminal for the cruise ships is located. Tourists come off the ship directly into the mall where some may shop and return to the ship before ever seeing more of Grenada.
As a light-skinned Grenadian I blended in with the throngs of tourists and viewed the mall through two lenses - one as a local and the other as if I had myself come off the ship.
If you don't read any further than this, here is my point: As the first impression for foreign visitors, the Esplanade Mall has some quality products but is massively inauthentic in representing Grenada. Not to say that Grenada cannot produce quality but the stores that were in the Mall themselves have not tapped into the potential of Grenadian products.
We walked into the mall from town side and passed a Subway on the right as we entered (USA). There was a Rituals coffee shop across from it. Rituals is a Starbucks style coffee chain from Trinidad. There was a Bob Marley licensed dealer in a kiosk in the middle of the mall - yes Bob Marley is part of a Caribbean identity but is in fact Jamaican. There is a store called Ganzee that offers many quality clothing and souveniers almost exclusively produced abroad - stamped with a 'Grenada' and sold in the store as a souvenier. They have a wide array of pirate souveniers - I think this is a strange notion and really didn't see very much of it before Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean. I challenge any tourist to find a local that thinks pirates are figures that represent Grenadian culture and identity. To Ganzee's credit they do sell local products like Grenada Chocolate, albeit for 30% more than you get it in the grocery. There is of course Duty Free shopping where you can buy cheap booze and perfume as well. There is a store featuring inexpensive Haitan art and another that imports products from Indonesia and West Africa. There is a sports store where you can buy US products at Grenadian prices. Some price tags on a pair of Nikes may run up to $500EC (About $200USD). There are a couple jewelry stores that do feature local jewelry and promote the identity of Grenada's indigenous people, the Kalinago.
There was one shop that was thoroughly Grenadian - a smoothie shop that sold fresh smoothies made from fresh produce from Grenada. One of our favorites is the Banana Peanut smoothie. At about 800 calories this is practically a meal replacement shake - tasty and filling.
With China's growing presence in Grenada one would wonder why there isn't a Chinese shop in this international melange of a mall. Only to be reminded grimly China is probably the producer of many of the products that don Grenada's colors as a souvenier.
So - to Grenadians, especially young, creative and enterprising artists and entrepreneurs - Esplanade Mall represents a force that says Grenada cannot produce goods in accordance with its own identity. Esplanade Mall represents foreign retailers taking advantage of Grenadian hesitation in the marketplace. There is beauty and potential in Grenada to produce authentic Grenadian products that when people buy, there are making a conscientious decision that when they visit Grenada - nothing but Grenadian will earn their dollars.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Reproduction: Lessons from the Music Industry
One of my quiet revolutions against the world of high fine art is my case for the legitimacy of reproducing your work for mass appeal and affordability. Many artists feel like reproductions undermine their legitimacy as an artist, somehow cheapens their endeavors and commercialize their work into a world that somehow isn't 'art'. When approached about having a painting printed with giclee on canvas or paper, or a poster made of a painting, or even something more progressive like a laptop or ipod skin - most 'high' artists would be repulsed.
Here is my argument based on the way the music industry works: If artists only ever showed their work in galleries - it would be as if musicians only ever shared their music at concerts. Let me clarify: if music artists treated their music the way some artists treat their work, they would not produce CDs, MP3s, or DVD's. They would not host fan sites or make appearances. If this is the way musicians operated: no one would know who they are. No one would hear their music.
Talking about this idea of 'legitimacy': if you as an artist do not put work into making your work accessible, your work will not be seen and where will the fruit of all your artistic passion be? By accepting this idea of artistic legitimacy - artists are in fact working against their own cause by making their art inaccessible to all but the people that may go into the gallery.
Treating visual art the way the industry treats the musical arts - let's have more dialogue about how an artist can create a social community around their work. Let's talk about producing reproductions so that more people can see the work. Let's talk about events beyond the gallery like spontaneous public art exhibitions. Let's talk about creative ways of distributing art and reaching a market of people who appreciate your work.
When it comes down to it in terms of creating value for your work and for yourself as an artist - the Mona Lisa is as valuable as it is because it is a mass produced image by a well publicized artist and if it was not - then it would have faded into obscurity like many of the artists of his time. Creating an environment where many people can see the work is not undermining to you as an artist - you are creating value for yourself.
Here is my argument based on the way the music industry works: If artists only ever showed their work in galleries - it would be as if musicians only ever shared their music at concerts. Let me clarify: if music artists treated their music the way some artists treat their work, they would not produce CDs, MP3s, or DVD's. They would not host fan sites or make appearances. If this is the way musicians operated: no one would know who they are. No one would hear their music.
Talking about this idea of 'legitimacy': if you as an artist do not put work into making your work accessible, your work will not be seen and where will the fruit of all your artistic passion be? By accepting this idea of artistic legitimacy - artists are in fact working against their own cause by making their art inaccessible to all but the people that may go into the gallery.
Treating visual art the way the industry treats the musical arts - let's have more dialogue about how an artist can create a social community around their work. Let's talk about producing reproductions so that more people can see the work. Let's talk about events beyond the gallery like spontaneous public art exhibitions. Let's talk about creative ways of distributing art and reaching a market of people who appreciate your work.
When it comes down to it in terms of creating value for your work and for yourself as an artist - the Mona Lisa is as valuable as it is because it is a mass produced image by a well publicized artist and if it was not - then it would have faded into obscurity like many of the artists of his time. Creating an environment where many people can see the work is not undermining to you as an artist - you are creating value for yourself.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Art for the Entrepreneurs: Artrepreneurship
For other young artists like myself - I implore you. I have an entrepreneurial spirit, a sharp learning curve and the desire to be better. In past endeavors this spirit has led me to sell cookies to classmates in primary school - or selling drums from Ghana in college to make it through my last semester. I get energized when thinking about a new way to sell something or a product that may really catch on. I've had lots of ideas and different outcomes but my realization about art has been a recent one that I'd like to share with you.
This is my mantra, "I am most valuable when I am making art"
Simple, yes. But no matter how much time I read about developing websites or selling odds and ends or bartending or consulting the fact is that if I work on a painting for 5 hours that sells for $1000 - then I am working for $200 an hour. Besides monetarily, I am most *myself* when I am making art because I express myself when making art. Art is where I communicate ideas and make concepts manifest on canvas. When I am making art I not only am being productive in a money sense but I am closest to being who I really am - and that is where I find value.
Before this realization I saw the value in making art - but art did not stimulate my entrepreneurial cravings. To me, art was something I made, I got to a gallery, I waited for someone to see it and contact me, I sold it... Not only is this system non-stimulating but it is also extremely passive. I know my gallerists are sometimes working to get my work known and sold - but as an artist am I *only* a production machine?
My recent merging of the two spirits have brought me to a place where I see my art as a product and that I need to taken the lion share of ownership in marketing it and getting it out there. This is my personal artrepreneurial revolution. I recently did a painting of Obama which I then scanned professionally and have available for reproductions on my site. This is not the end, however, my artrepreneurial revolution involves creating yourself as an online artist that mingles with other artists the way artists have done in communities for ages. This involves the fact that as an art lover myself I cannot afford even a modest piece of art. My reaction to that is looking for ways to not only make my art more accessible to many demographics but also to make it affordable. Many people my age may be more likely to invest in a digital image of an artist's work to 'hang' on their social networking page. Some people may be more likely to buy a skin for their laptop, cell phone or ipod that has an artist's image on it than a painting to hang on the wall.
Once I realized the power of an image as a product - my role as an artist will never be the same.
I would love to hear your feedback - where are you in your career as an artist? Are you considering different marketing strategies? Have you come to grips with the reality that as an artist you are the producer, the marketing rep, the salesperson, the accountant, the web designer and the CEO of your company: I'manartist inc.?
For quick resources on artrepreneurship - check out these sites:
www.theartrepreneur
www.judydunn.blogspot.com/
www.artbizblog.com/
www.arts-careers.com/
www.artpromote.com/resources.shtml
That should start you off with the art business stuff - check out these sites too though:
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/
http://www.gmarketing.com/
http://www.webmarketingezine.com/
The book that addresses my specific concerns and desires has yet to be written - it takes compiling different ideas from different people to make something that makes sense to you.
This is my mantra, "I am most valuable when I am making art"
Simple, yes. But no matter how much time I read about developing websites or selling odds and ends or bartending or consulting the fact is that if I work on a painting for 5 hours that sells for $1000 - then I am working for $200 an hour. Besides monetarily, I am most *myself* when I am making art because I express myself when making art. Art is where I communicate ideas and make concepts manifest on canvas. When I am making art I not only am being productive in a money sense but I am closest to being who I really am - and that is where I find value.
Before this realization I saw the value in making art - but art did not stimulate my entrepreneurial cravings. To me, art was something I made, I got to a gallery, I waited for someone to see it and contact me, I sold it... Not only is this system non-stimulating but it is also extremely passive. I know my gallerists are sometimes working to get my work known and sold - but as an artist am I *only* a production machine?
My recent merging of the two spirits have brought me to a place where I see my art as a product and that I need to taken the lion share of ownership in marketing it and getting it out there. This is my personal artrepreneurial revolution. I recently did a painting of Obama which I then scanned professionally and have available for reproductions on my site. This is not the end, however, my artrepreneurial revolution involves creating yourself as an online artist that mingles with other artists the way artists have done in communities for ages. This involves the fact that as an art lover myself I cannot afford even a modest piece of art. My reaction to that is looking for ways to not only make my art more accessible to many demographics but also to make it affordable. Many people my age may be more likely to invest in a digital image of an artist's work to 'hang' on their social networking page. Some people may be more likely to buy a skin for their laptop, cell phone or ipod that has an artist's image on it than a painting to hang on the wall.
Once I realized the power of an image as a product - my role as an artist will never be the same.
I would love to hear your feedback - where are you in your career as an artist? Are you considering different marketing strategies? Have you come to grips with the reality that as an artist you are the producer, the marketing rep, the salesperson, the accountant, the web designer and the CEO of your company: I'manartist inc.?
For quick resources on artrepreneurship - check out these sites:
www.theartrepreneur
www.judydunn.blogspot.com/
www.artbizblog.com/
www.arts-careers.com/
www.artpromote.com/resources.shtml
That should start you off with the art business stuff - check out these sites too though:
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/
http://www.gmarketing.com/
http://www.webmarketingezine.com/
The book that addresses my specific concerns and desires has yet to be written - it takes compiling different ideas from different people to make something that makes sense to you.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
So - What do you do?
This question probably more than any other question related to my work sends my mind in a hundred different directions. I'm sure many artists struggle between their identity as members of the "real working world" and as artists. At times it takes split second tempering to decide what kind of answer the person is really looking for. A lot of times I cop out and go with my "real world job" as my answer. "I'm a bartender." .... as if I wasn't *really* an artist.
While I don't believe that people should wrap their identity up with what they do to make money - there are certain things that cannot escape the day to day reality of what you do.
After painting for 13 years I am only now coming to grips with the fact that the answer to, "what do you do?" is, "I am an artist."
Okay, the next question is "Oh - what kind of art do you do". This is the real source of dread for me in answering the question because I am doomed to understate my mission. My canned answer is "I paint people".
In case I ever meet you and I give you this canned, halfway answer - here is the real answer. "I paint people in a way that diffuses the social construction of race and casts the subjects of my paintings in colors that do not reflect the melanin-esque realities but the reality of humanity. I want to not only paint humans as humans (and not members of melanin groups) but in an empowering way that speaks to their most realized identity." This usually will lead to people assuming that I think race doesn't exist. Here is my response, "To say that when I look at a black person I don't see color would be ignoring the reality that they have a heritage rooted in their historical context as an heir to their race. But I do believe that the constructs we call 'race' our contrived and social in nature and while recognizing that someone's skin color may influence their identity; I believe that as humans we have stronger ties to each other than as members of our races."
At this point, depending on who I was talking to, would give me a look of consternation and ask, "are you saying that you don't believe there are inequalities or other consequences of race?" No - I am not saying that. I am saying, in reaction to the inequalities and consequences of race and ethnicity in the world I want to create an environment through my art where people can look at people with fresh sight - beyond the visual baggage we have inherited.
This conversation may or may not continue depending on the interest level of my conversation partner... the thing that makes this conversation difficult to spring on people is that it is an involved process that has many facets. So while trying to think of a concise explanation I want to be able to express the meaning behind my paintings.
Try me sometime when you bump into me - or shoot me an e-mail. Ask me, "What do you do?" and be ready for me to ask you.
While I don't believe that people should wrap their identity up with what they do to make money - there are certain things that cannot escape the day to day reality of what you do.
After painting for 13 years I am only now coming to grips with the fact that the answer to, "what do you do?" is, "I am an artist."
Okay, the next question is "Oh - what kind of art do you do". This is the real source of dread for me in answering the question because I am doomed to understate my mission. My canned answer is "I paint people".
In case I ever meet you and I give you this canned, halfway answer - here is the real answer. "I paint people in a way that diffuses the social construction of race and casts the subjects of my paintings in colors that do not reflect the melanin-esque realities but the reality of humanity. I want to not only paint humans as humans (and not members of melanin groups) but in an empowering way that speaks to their most realized identity." This usually will lead to people assuming that I think race doesn't exist. Here is my response, "To say that when I look at a black person I don't see color would be ignoring the reality that they have a heritage rooted in their historical context as an heir to their race. But I do believe that the constructs we call 'race' our contrived and social in nature and while recognizing that someone's skin color may influence their identity; I believe that as humans we have stronger ties to each other than as members of our races."
At this point, depending on who I was talking to, would give me a look of consternation and ask, "are you saying that you don't believe there are inequalities or other consequences of race?" No - I am not saying that. I am saying, in reaction to the inequalities and consequences of race and ethnicity in the world I want to create an environment through my art where people can look at people with fresh sight - beyond the visual baggage we have inherited.
This conversation may or may not continue depending on the interest level of my conversation partner... the thing that makes this conversation difficult to spring on people is that it is an involved process that has many facets. So while trying to think of a concise explanation I want to be able to express the meaning behind my paintings.
Try me sometime when you bump into me - or shoot me an e-mail. Ask me, "What do you do?" and be ready for me to ask you.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Long time since last post
It's been a long time since my last post and I'll do my best to be more disciplined in updating this blog. Since I last wrote the world has changed and Babylon has chosen an Aethiopian as its leader. This changes too much to expound in a quick blog - leave it to say I will incorporate this new truth into my blog.
Since I last wrote I started a new job that I am now 6 months into. I started a new business which you can find at www.liquidartisan.com. I reformatted my website making room for different streams of my contributions. I started a semester at Brookhaven college where I am now wrapping up the fall semester.
In short - personal development continues.
Since I last wrote I started a new job that I am now 6 months into. I started a new business which you can find at www.liquidartisan.com. I reformatted my website making room for different streams of my contributions. I started a semester at Brookhaven college where I am now wrapping up the fall semester.
In short - personal development continues.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Rasta Lessons: Dreadlocks
I'm going to try to compile different explanations for dreadlocks from the vault of Asher's thoughts. :)
In my opinion - there seems to be more good reasons for wearing dreadlocks than not.
Popularized by the Rastafarian movement, dreadlocks are associated with ganja culture and rebellion. However, dreadlocks have been worn long before the "Dreads" from Jamaica. Dreadlocks have been found worn by Egyptian mummies. Dreads are worn by Nazerites in Judaism. It is also said that James, the brother of Jesus wore dreadlocks down to his ankles. It is possible that dreadlocks were worn by early Christians. Dreadlocks are worn by Sathus in Hinduism as well as by Coptic Christians. Closer to the Rastas heart, dreadlocks were worn by the soldiers in Kenya during the Mau Mau uprising (1952-1960). This uprising involved Kenyan ethnic groups rebelling against colonial rule. To the Rastas, dreadlocks are supported by the biblical reference to Samson.
Rastafarianism started as a movement in the 1930's but dreads didn't gain mass appeal until about the 1950's. The attitude behind it was that (among other things) the colonial powers want the people to look how they want people to look. But as we rebel against the colonial powers we will not look how they want us to look. We will be dreadful to look upon. Thus, dreadlocks.
Dreadlocks also symbolize the lion's mane. Associations with the lion draw reference to Haile Selassie I as the conquering lion of Judah. Lions I believe also bring imagery of the mother continent to the mental foreground. Dreads also represent roots. Rastafarians have a strong sense of history and there is a draw to restore things like culture to the way it was before colonialism. This kind of thinking is roots thinking.
Dreadlocks can be an identifier in that the longer they are the longer you have belonged to the faith. You can also tell alot by the color of the locks. Locks will naturally turn brown or even grey. Some people who wear dread locks are called Natty Dreads because they dye their locks black to make them look nice. Natty Dreads are most likely to be wearing dreads for fashion. Natty is a word that means 'pretty'.
On the reverse side - according to a popular Morgan Heritage song - "You don't haffi be dread to be Rasta" You don't need to wear locks to live a Rasta lifestyle.
In my opinion - there seems to be more good reasons for wearing dreadlocks than not.
Popularized by the Rastafarian movement, dreadlocks are associated with ganja culture and rebellion. However, dreadlocks have been worn long before the "Dreads" from Jamaica. Dreadlocks have been found worn by Egyptian mummies. Dreads are worn by Nazerites in Judaism. It is also said that James, the brother of Jesus wore dreadlocks down to his ankles. It is possible that dreadlocks were worn by early Christians. Dreadlocks are worn by Sathus in Hinduism as well as by Coptic Christians. Closer to the Rastas heart, dreadlocks were worn by the soldiers in Kenya during the Mau Mau uprising (1952-1960). This uprising involved Kenyan ethnic groups rebelling against colonial rule. To the Rastas, dreadlocks are supported by the biblical reference to Samson.
Rastafarianism started as a movement in the 1930's but dreads didn't gain mass appeal until about the 1950's. The attitude behind it was that (among other things) the colonial powers want the people to look how they want people to look. But as we rebel against the colonial powers we will not look how they want us to look. We will be dreadful to look upon. Thus, dreadlocks.
Dreadlocks also symbolize the lion's mane. Associations with the lion draw reference to Haile Selassie I as the conquering lion of Judah. Lions I believe also bring imagery of the mother continent to the mental foreground. Dreads also represent roots. Rastafarians have a strong sense of history and there is a draw to restore things like culture to the way it was before colonialism. This kind of thinking is roots thinking.
Dreadlocks can be an identifier in that the longer they are the longer you have belonged to the faith. You can also tell alot by the color of the locks. Locks will naturally turn brown or even grey. Some people who wear dread locks are called Natty Dreads because they dye their locks black to make them look nice. Natty Dreads are most likely to be wearing dreads for fashion. Natty is a word that means 'pretty'.
On the reverse side - according to a popular Morgan Heritage song - "You don't haffi be dread to be Rasta" You don't need to wear locks to live a Rasta lifestyle.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Rasta Lesson: Archibald Dunkley, Joseph Hibbert, Robert Hinds
This post is a combined post of three early Rastafari leaders because there is not a great deal of literature out there about any one of them in particular. This post is just to cover the ground level of early rastafarian leaders. These three men, Dunkley, Hibbert and Hinds were along the same lines as the more prominent early rasta leader, Leonard Howell. All four began preaching independently of each other in the slums of West Kingston, Jamaica where they discovered each other and a movement was born.
Dunkley was a Jamaican seaman who studied the Bible for 2 years before concluding that Selassie was the messiah about which Marcus Garvey had prophesied. They all subscribed to the Garvey ideas of Back to Africa and of an Ethiopianism philosophy. Dunkley had much prestige along with Howell and they were attributed with divine characteristics. They were arrested around the same time and Dunkley was also committed to an asylum later in life. Dunkley along with Hibbert may be responsible for some of the small strains of mysticism in rastafarianism. They had both spent time in the Masonic Lodge. More specifically the Ancient Mystic Order of Ethiopia.
While Hinds began preaching with Howell it is said that after a time he went his own separate way. It's hard to find information on him specifically yet he is always lumped together with the other early rastafarian leaders.
In any case these men spread the message that Garvey started and Howell preached. They were a kind of group of 'apostles' for the early rastafarian church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
