Somehow we got to this point. It’s not a bad place to be. It’s not a good place either. Perhaps it was inevitable that this would happen. After all, we didn’t know what we were doing when we started this whole thing. But now that we’re here, it might be time to step back a minute and think about what we’re doing before things get really messy — or worse, we lose focus on what’s important.
What am I talking about? The so-called “People’s Arts Center.” Who’s calling it that? A hodgepodge group of artists and art supporters who named themselves the Charleston Arts Coalition. Its goal, according to a press release announcing tonight’s panel discussion at Theatre 99, is “to find and modify real estate through out the city of Charleston, to house production, presentation, and education space for the creative arts. The ultimate project goal is the creation of the People’s Art Center.”
What is the People Arts Center? Well, it’s nothing at the moment. I take that back. It’s not nothing. But it’s not something. It’s just an idea right now, a seductive and potentially distracting and maybe even damaging idea that, like a lot of seductive and potentially distracting and maybe even damaging ideas, has got people talking. If at some point in the distant future we could achieve the ideal of a “unified center for the arts,” as the group is calling it — it would be really, really great.
Think about what’s happened since October. PURE Theatre left its space at the Cigar Factory. It’ll be turned into condos. The American Theater is going to converted into space for wedding receptions. Buxton’s East Bay Theatre got shuttered. The leases for Charleston Ballet Theatre and Redux Contemporary Art Center will run out at the end of 2009. As for live music venues, Cumberland’s and the Map Room closed their doors. And this week, we learned that The Plex in North Charleston is going to be demolished to make way for an office building.
So a “unified center for the arts” is just what we need, right? A central location on the peninsula where all of the city’s artists — visual and performing artists — have a place to be, to work, to share ideas. Performing artist would have a place to stage productions. Visual artists could make and sell their work. The visibility of a home would make a better case that the arts are vital to our city and our economy.
Does that sound good? Of course, it does. All fantasies sound dandy.
But is it the right way to go? No, I’m afraid not.
Let me be clear. If an arts center is in our future, that’s great. More art in more space is more better. I would love to see a place where artists are working. I would love to see restaurants and bookstores move in around the artists doing their thing. The SoHo paradigm is utterly titillating. Who wouldn’t love that?
Even so, I’m not convinced the so-called Charleston Arts Coalition knows what’s involved in building or rehabbing a facility. Even if it were able to pull off the miracle of building the political will, raising money, rallying support among philanthropists and developers, there’s the small detail of operating the facility. This, among other things, has me thinking the Coalition isn’t serious about addressing the venue problem.
(One of these other things is the problem as defined by Jonathan Brilliant, a panelist and leading figure in the Charleston Arts Coalition. He said the main problem was that artists are leaving Charleston to pursue careers elsewhere. He said an arts center would encourage them to stay. If this is true, which I doubt, and if this is a problem, it’s a minor one that’s disproportional to the efforts he suggests go into its solution.)
Why don’t I think the Coalition is taking this seriously? Because even an arts center won’t address the problems taking shape since October (see above). Put simply, this is a performing arts problem, not a visual arts problem. Dance and theater companies have needs far beyond those of visual artists for the simple reason that their art is nearly always collaborative and needing more space for more people to do more things. But from the beginning of these discussions, starting in April at Redux, there has been a narrow grasp of the total venue problem, a fact reflected by those sitting on that first panel: seven visual artists, one theatrical, no dancers or musicians at all.
Tonight’s panel discussion was almost entirely focused on the visual arts even though the immediate problem we face has little to do with the visual arts. In fact, as Chris Price, the lone belabored-looking panelist from the development group PrimeSouth, said, there are plenty of visual arts in Charleston. Just look around. Charleston is teeming with visual arts all year long, even during the long hot summer.
I’m aware of the struggles visual artists face in Charleston with getting their work sold, getting decent representation, with finding galleries that will show their work. Marshscapes are everywhere. The range of aesthetic can be limiting. Contemporary art is often defined too narrowly. But a theater company cannot function without a stage. A painter can still paint without a gallery. A failure to see the fundamental difference between these problems is a failure to take the whole issue seriously at all.
Like I said, if an arts center is in our future, I look forward to it. I just ask one thing — that the Charleston Arts Coalition be honest. This group of well-meaning artists and arts supports has shrewdly identified an opportunity to make the case for an arts center in a climate of anxiety and crisis. Many people attending these discussions are very concerned about music and dance and theater — and many are leaving feeling that they have wasted their time, that this is a dog and pony show, that that is fantasy.
What’s worse is that the Coalition is going to push these naturally concerned supporters away and in doing so it’s going to deepen the already deep divide between artists in Charleston. When these discussions began in April, I was surprised to see so much eagerness to take action, so much good will to work together. By distracting us from the real issue at hand — that is, it’s a performing arts problem — the Arts Coalition may be doing damage where it intended to do good. The Coalition can’t continue using the rhetoric of inclusiveness when it’s clear not everyone is included. Truth matters even when you’re mired in magical thinking.
7 Comments
Bravo. EXcellent formulation of a problem that has existed since the late 1980s; it ha snever been stated so concisely and so well.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I want to remind you and everyone, that we are at the beginning of a planning process, and no one, including yourself has the answers yet. As we developed last nights panel based on the feedback from the previous panel, so will we develop the next panel based on feedback from this panel. I do want to point out that the two developers speaking last night focused on the visual arts because that was what Columbia needed(perhaps you missed my introduction where I emphasized that this was not a music man moment, and we were not being sold our new art center by a bunch of carpet baggers). To his credit Chris Price from primesouth is very open to working with artists, and performers to create mutually beneficial situations. I don’t need to point out the fact that the discussion was held at theatre 99 a performing arts venue, which Brandy generously offered for use after the last panel. It should also be noted that Sharon of pure theater and Nathan of the new music collective both expressed interest in being involved in future planning meetings. For our next panel, which will happen sometime in the fall, we will work to incorporate the feedback from this panel. I know you are searching for a titillating story but perhaps the headline should read,
“Artists and Developers Got Together For Informal Talk and Brainstorming Session at Theatre 99 , Asked Audience to Submit Ideas on Questionnaires Provided, and Refreshments Were Available.” If you know of a musician or performer, or artist who wants to be part of the dialog, or feels their voice is not being heard please have them send their contact info to questions@peoplesartcenter.com
building a coalition takes time and open mindedness from everyone involved.
Regards
jonathan
I would respectfully note that, while last night’s forum was rather focused on visual art, this was largely due to the fact that the developers were presenting a project in Columbia with that specific focus. In actuality, one of the intended benefits of a unified center would be to bring together both visual and performing arts. In addition to some of the practical benefits of this arrangement, this center would also help unify the far too often balkanized disciplines.
The intention of the meeting was to gain some insight into the funding and planning process that went into a similar model with a different focus. A second goal was to provide a rare chance for the “hodgepodge group of artists and art supporters “ to begin a dialogue with experts from the fiscal sector. The very fact that these folks were involved in the nascent planning stages was intended to dismiss some of the starry-eyed idealism that you seem to have mischaracterized in this report and balance the amorphous hopes with a dose of pragmatism. If you dig a little deeper I think that you will discover that the coalition is far more grounded and realistic about the huge barriers to the success of this project. I would also like to emphasize that they are looking for a viable long-term solution that will be sustained through earned income and not some angelic gift from the city or altruistic developers.
Additionally, this was merely the second public forum for the yet to be defined concept. It is important to first establish a need for such an entity and solicit input from as many constituents, experts and potential patrons as possible. One can logically assume that any success will hinge on participation of a larger coalition of players including the city, state, bankers and many others. I think that you are being a bit presumptive in your cavalier (at times patronizing) dismissal of the significant yet embryonic efforts put forth by The Charleston Arts Coalition.
Finally, while it might seem novel to create a single center for both the performing and visual arts, it has actually been done many times with great success in other parts of the country. Beyond the practical implications of shared operating costs and other resources, it is a model that can foster collaboration, experimentation and innovative art across disciplines. While I respect your opine that the performing arts are in more critical need of a home, I would contend that outlets for contemporary visual art on this skinny peninsula are quite limited and potentially shrinking. For both parties it is of paramount importance to find some physical and fiscal shelter to stave off the hermit crab approach that seems to plague emerging arts organizations in Charleston.
Thanks for your comments on the panel. This is a great source for exposure for this cause and the article will certainly get people thinking. I do however think your criticisms are rather brash. These conversations that began in April were inspired by two organizations that are being forced off the peninsula - Redux and Pure Theater. So you see this is a visual arts problem as well as performing arts.
Also, your thoughts of the coalition being unknowing of what they are doing are without full consideration to these individuals. All of the coalition members have experience in arts administration to some level and know full well that the first step in getting these projects done is getting people talking. “How will this center operate?” I would love to be in a position to ask that question. The truth is that we are far from that stage and it is well know amongst the coalition.
I was at last nights panel as well as the one at Redux and was very surprised by this article. I don’t disagree that the panel was mostly focused around visual art but I believe that it was because the Columbia project only focuses on visual art. A woman from the audience asked this question to the panel members: “do you think the model you just talked about could be adapted to include preforming art as well?” The answer in a few more words was “yes.”
I would also ask you to elaborate on why, as you mentioned in your article, this project is “seductive and potentially distracting and maybe even a damaging idea.” Charleston does not have an art center (many cities do). If this group as well as the people that were at Redux in April and the people that attended last night want to encourage a conversation about creating one, I’m curious what you think is “damaging” about that?
I await your answer and until then, hope that your article does not discourage anyone that reads it.
Thank you for your article and for attending last night’s panel. I would like to remind you and your readers that the Charleston Arts Coalition is an open group that any and all are welcome to join (the name for the group sounded a bit better then “a hodgepodge group of artists and art supporters” but maybe we will work on the name at the next meeting). The first coalition meeting was held after the panel at Redux and was attended by a psychologist, a few artists and gallery owners, a few business owners, a performer, someone from a local museum, a lawyer/banker, a couple of people from a local non-profit, and even a journalist was there. From this meeting the idea and format for the follow-up panel was formed. It is our hope that the diversity within and support for the group will continue to grow. Email if you are interested: questions@peoplesartcenter.com
Excellent article. Too often people are willing to shy away from exploring ALL the facets of a project so large. The allure of ‘magical thinking’ can be powerful. That is to say that something like what CAC is planning could happen, but the planning needs to be approached realistically.
Royce