Art Prize in Grand Rapids

I am so confused! I know, I know, most of you would agree that I am rather confused about a lot of things but this is different. It's about the "rules" again. Let me explain.

Art: Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter or counteract the work of nature.

I live in the Greater Grand Rapids Michigan area. Grand Rapids is hosting, for the third year an event called "ArtPrize." Hundreds of pieces of Art are displayed throughout the city and even a little beyond. Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into the area to view the art and vote on their favorite work. There are all kinds: Big, small, colorful, black and white, sculpture, paint, even live all vying for a prize up to $250,000. It's a beautiful thing to behold. The part that is confusing to me is where a number of people are whining about the prize winners. They, it seems are the experts on what "Art" really is instead of the hundreds of thousands of people doing the voting. The winner this year, A mosaic of the Crucifixion in glass is nothing short of spectacular. The so called experts are saying that something is awry when such a magnificent work of art is the winner. What????? They are saying it is too, "normal!" Something tells me they are simply whining because they were caught with their pants down in the world of art. Where is it set in stone that a work of art needs to shock or go against nature or be repugnant to most people who, "don't understand" those art forms.

Many of those same people were in awe of a simple glass of urine with a crucifix set in it at another show. No days weeks or months of effort, no imagination or extraordinary thought processes, no intricate coloring or use of shadowing, no fine detail to provoke or inspire or even to be just plain fun to look at. However, it fell within their strictly defined idea of art. That, to me is ignorant.

Art, taken by it's definition can be almost anything. Be it repugnant or touching, irrelevant or inspiring, funny or sad, thought provoking or mindless. I don't understand anyone who professes to know all about what art is restricting it to only what they deem as worthy. Every art piece in this years ArtPrize is worthy for heavens sake. This year a very popular special piece won. I hope the organizers never back down from their goal of bringing fine art to the public in such a terrific way. I wonder truthfully if any of those so called experts actually voted or did they find it more satisfying or attention getting just sitting back and crying foul? I have a challenge for them: Create what you believe to be a finer work of art than any of the ones that won and put it in next years competition. Or, is it just too easy to blame stuff on the rest of us being too vulgar to really get it?

Those rules again

As far as being a big time author is concerned I am probably pretty small potatoes. A few magazine articles, a how to manual and one, not very well promoted book. Although I do feel that copies sold being over 2000 may stand for something. Writing has been quite a multi faceted experience: feelings of inadequacy, exultation, short lived megalomania, humility, gratitude, accomplishment, disappointment, frustration and joy all wrapped up in one project. One part of it that has been and is now especially trying is any dependency on someone else. Be it a writing coach, publisher, editor or, as it is at this particular time an artist. I have several different writing initiatives going right now and most of them require art work of one degree to another and they are just not getting the attention I was led to believe they would. It doesn't seem to matter whether they are professional or amateur either. I do know what the problem is though: Me!

From the very beginning of my writing career I was told and read through research that there are rules to be followed. In my lifetime I have been a bit of a rogue when it comes to what I felt were meaningless, silly rules. I think I related them to some type of aristocratic dynasty keeping the common people out of their little circle. I've been subjected to and resisted that controlling attitude because I felt it interfered with the growth of free thought. I've found that in many situations I was dead wrong about the reasoning behind the rules. #1 I was being the judge and jury in determining which was a valid rule and which was not. #2 I failed to realize that rules are a necessary part of writing as much as driving a car or building a pyramid. One mistake and it's all over. I'm trying to learn the rules better.

What does hiring an artist got to do with the rules? Evidently I have a lot to learn on that because in almost every case it has wound up in disaster, disappointment, unexplained delay and the job not getting done on time to meet the publishing deadline. My folks used to call it: Getting all of my ducks in a row first! That was rule #1 with them. So I am going back to the very beginning and attempting to get all of my ducks in a row before the next deadline. Some of us take longer to learn than others don't we? Another thing my folks used to say: Better late than never!

Evan Emory and deceit

Being young is not a good excuse for Evan Emory. When he was interviewed by a TV journalist he said he deceived the school district because that was the only way he could make the vulgar video as good as it was. That being said even after he knew he'd stepped way over the line of common decency, let alone the law.

Everyone begins life young and ignorant. We all make stupid mistakes. It's a process: this gaining of knowledge of right and wrong, common sense and morals. Most of us come through it without major damage to ourselves or others. Evan Emory messed up big time. He knew it was wrong because he lied to the teachers right from the start. He didn't ask permission to change the music and words, he hid while he did that. A true "artist" doesn't hide. Then he placed the video on YouTube for all to see. This is how "wrong" works. Do what you have to do, lie, sneak, steal, and by the time you get the job done its too late for anyone to change it and you get off Scott free. I believe that was his plan from the get-go. He didn't get away with it and now he has to pay the consequences.

I wouldn't want to see this guy get 20 years in the slammer though. Stupid doesn't deserve 20 years or even 5. I feel he should get plenty of years of public service helping abused children and adults though. Michael Vick is doing public service for what he did and is accomplishing a lot in doing so. He has even become a personal advocate for abused animals because he has had a change of heart due to what he's learned. I don't wish a young guy like Evan a lifetime of punishment. He deserves consequences, yes. But wouldn't it be better if he did some type of restitution to children and society as well. That's a win-win in my opinion.

So I say, "Evan Emory listen up and listen up quick. You can still fess up and learn from all this. It start with the realization that we do not have to accept what you've done because you are simply a harmless artist expressing yourself. You lied and did an unconscionable thing involving our children. Admit the wrong you did with the filthy lyrics being inserted into an otherwise innocent, trusting video. Accept your consequences whatever they may be and learn what morals are. It will be better for all involved and the kids you deceived will learn what type of person you really are.