Indulging My Photo Addiction: Day 165

A most wonderful thing has been happening in Grand Rapids for the past couple of weeks: ArtPrize. The brainstorm of Rick DeVos, the event was open to any and all artists. Businesses and buildings chose from the proposed projects and art was created and displayed across a three-mile area.

One of the most groundbreaking (and controversial) aspects of ArtPrize was that the winner would be decided by the public. Not by jury, not by curators, but by what many in the art world apparently consider the uneducated, unwashed masses.

I have rarely seen a city so involved in conversation. For the most part, those masses were exposed to art on an unprecedented scale--and, from what I can gather, came out of the experience amazed and thankful and really happy. It's not that they haven't seen art before. It's not that they haven't pursued art. But there were over 1,200 distinct pieces of art on display to be seen without any greater expense than a parking meter. In fact, it was almost impossible to avoid. Furthermore, the artists themselves were also there on an incredible scale. They were on hand to explain their art, to share their vision, to mingle with other artists.

I can't help thinking that all the people who complained about the "pop" and "folk" pieces that garnered lots of attention, who maligned the Grand Rapids public as unappreciative bumpkins who could only like something if it were "gussied up in spectacle," really missed out. The point of this event was to not only celebrate art in all its incarnations--which it did--but also to begin a conversation with the public that artists so often say they want to reach but despair of doing so.

Who is art for? Is it simply an indulgence for the artist, alone in their studio? Or is it for the public, a chance for the artist to convey their vision to others--for change, for impact, for the sheer need to express beauty and life, joy or sorrow?

I happen to think art should evoke--emotion, conversation, whatever. And I'm struck by something that those who are complaning that not enough "real art" made it to the top ten, that if a piece of folk art* won it would prove Grand Rapids was just some backwater hickville, don't seem to realize: they're getting a chance to air their views. They're having a conversation with people they otherwise would probably never have spoken to. Their art (for those who were taking part in the competition) is being seen by people who might just fall in love with it.

One of the pieces I fell in love with (there were several) was held up as an example: "This is real art!" "If this doesn't win, the competition was rigged!" "Grand Rapids will never choose this, because it's actually art!"

Well, it did take home first prize. And the artist who painted it stood by his work day after day, taking the time to talk to the public and explain what it meant and why he creates when creativity is so rarely rewarded in any material sense. He was open and generous and not at all condescending. His piece spoke for itself--but he allowed others to join in on the conversation.

Ran Ortner's "Open Water no. 24" is seen below (definitely click on these to make them larger). And it was so much more compelling, astonishing, and majestic in person than any picture can convey. It got my vote, and I'm thrilled to have been able to be involved in his success. Congratulations!