The latest Goodreads bulletin is on artist-run culture. Timothy Comeau has posted a very interesting article by AA Bronson of General Idea, first published in 1983, Andrew J. Patterson's preface to our book Money Value Art, and a link to the discussion on this blog in September. I'm really glad to see artist-run culture under the bell-jar right now. There is an article on the topic in the current C Magazine by Emily Vey Duke, and a piece on Art Metropole coming soon in Art On Paper magazine by Micah Toub.
AA Bronson's essay is a good history, delivered with a tongue-in-cheek biblical tone: ...it was natural to call upon our national attributes - the bureaucratic tendency and the protestant work ethic - and working together, and working sometimes not together we laboured to structure, or rather to untangle from the messy post-Sixties spaghetti of our minds, artist-run galleries, artists' video, and artist-run magazines. And that allowed us to allow ourselves to see ourselves as an art scene. And we did.
Throughout the essay he returns again and again to the refrain of Canadian engagement with bureaucracy and protestant work ethic. I can relate, being endowed with a does of both of those traits. But AA was writing in 1983, which is starting to seem like a long time ago. I wonder what he would say now to the question: what engine fuels artist-run culture today? As anyone currently involved with ARCs (like Bronson) is keenly aware, there is a massive difference between doing the tedious grunt work to make your own project happen, and managing to inspire a team of young, creative employees.
Emily Vey Duke's essay is fabulous. I'm tempted to keyboard the whole thing and post it, but of course that would be stealing. She and partner Cooper Battersby are video artists who made their name speaking poetically to the youthful state of "Being Fucked Up." (I love this video.) Vey Duke is now an arts administrator, the new director of a Halifax artist-run centre called the Khyber Centre for the Arts. This represents a shift:
When I first decided to be an artist, I had an incredible sense of urgency about my work. I had to express myself to others because I felt unbearably alone. It worked. People understood. Now I don't feel alone as often or with as much intensity. Instead, I spend my time trying to re-conceptualize my job as director of a "regional" Artist-Run Centre...to make it feel even a tiny bit pressing.
And she succeeds! Halifax is a raw city when it comes to interracial politics. The catastrophic demolition of Africville hangs over everyone, and there is a constant tension in the "shady" neighbourhoods of the North End between emerging art-types and established poor and working class. The racial divide is not absolute, but it is visible. Vey Duke draws out this urban friction through a personal incident, and ends her article with a call:
There is urgency here. It is an urgent matter that I find ways to be white that don't contribute to ... rage and alienation...The Khyber may flounder and fail; I may never make another experimental art video. Both those things would sadden but not ruin me. In this other area, there is no margin for error. I have to act different in a way that keeps Black teens out of jail.
I'm grateful to Goodreads for posting Bronson's article and furthering this discussion. I have been thinking that the onus for inspiring young artists-as-bureaucrats lies with the older generation. After all, they need employees who will put in extra hours and excited, fresh, young board members to administer the institutions they created. But of course I've got it backwards. It is the job of people like Vey Duke, who see where urgency lies, to push the institutions into the shapes that can apply to the pressing Canadian art needs of today. Mabye the way to revitalise artist-run culture is to start by asking, what's missing?...and bring the very people who are missing it on board. And nobody has to toss out the great Canadian legacies of bureaucratic tendency and protestant work ethic.
Broadly speaking, I wonder about the historical relationships between "great Canadian legacies of bureaucratic tendenc[ies]", the "protestant work ethic" (as an immigrant society, I found it interesting to see this term used here - especially in relation to arcs and transported outside of its original capitalist context) and the "Black teens" Vey Duke wants to keep out of jail - and how did artist-run cultures reach the point where they now have to ask "what's missing" and "bring the very people who are missing it on board"? Just some quick thoughts...
That's a big -- and very good -- question. I have been reading a basic Canadian history textbook* lately cause I'm too ignorant. I'm only up to the early 1900's when Laurier was busy restricting Asian immigration. Futher (according to the book), "by the end of the Laurier years the full force of the Department of the Interior's administrative machinery was also being applied to discourage further immigration of blacks, who had made up 9 per cent of the 303,608 immigrants from the United States who had come to Canada by 1911." And, of course, there were also huge battles raging about schools, starting in Manitoba which was primarily populated by Roman Catholic and French-speaking people when they joined the country in 1870: "By 1891, however the population had increased fivefold and less than 20 per cent of Manitobans were Catholics. Influential local politicians like Clifford Sifton and Joseph Martin had already concluded that Manitoba's Catholic schools were of poor quality, costly and inefficient. Conscious of the varied racial and cultural backgrounds of Manitoba's newcomers, they reasoned that perpetuation of denominational schools would raise up in Manitoba a populace hopelessly divided by language, customs, and religion, one with no common devotion to their new homeland." (emphasis mine)
*Granatstein, J.L., et al, Twentieth Century Canada, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1983.
More pertinent to Vey Duke's essay, is, of course, the mid-1960s demolition of the black community of Africville in Halifax. This quote below is from Pamela Brown's 1996 essay "Africville: Urban Removal in Canada," which you can read in its entirety online. The city council set up an alliance of black and white "caretakers" to act as the voice of the community at council meetings and aid in the relocation exchange terms. Africville residents were not consulted in the formation of initial relocation terms, and no attention was given to considering strategies whereby residents could be involved in the planning process. Given the City s power through control of resources, the financial exchange terms had a one-sided advantage in its favor. Most families would receive a gratuitous payment of $500, hardly an amount sufficient for resettlement in metropolitan Halifax, in which the cost of living ranks among the highest in Canada. The "caretakers" were members of the Halifax Human Rights Advisory. A committee formulated to protect the interests of Africville residents. The caretakers had become members of the committee through concern for human rights, accepting the "civil rights political climate" of the 1960 s, they were against racial segregation and believed in integration. Their political ideology can be characterized as mainstream liberalism.
"Maybe the way to revitalise artist-run culture is to start by asking, what's missing?" Sally McKay
"And what better place to develop the interior kingdom of the soul, than in the humiliation of the bureaucrat, the constant death of palace coups, the submission of rational consciousness to this sleep-song drifting down the long chain of dream-palaces, this idealised vision of the "museum", of history, in which the artist animates the quaking body of the institution with his own obsessive will?"A.A. Bronson
Hey Sally,
I had two, err, well four questions.
1: What do you think is missing from artist-run culture?
2:How could institutional artist-run culture be revitalised by the addition of those things?
3:What do you think A.A. Bronson is proposing when he refers to "humiliation of the bureaucrat"?
4:Do you think ARCs are humble?
d-oh! Micah Toub just emailed me, and I got the name of the publication he's writing for wrong! It's corrected now. Very sorry everyone!!
J, those are big questions. I am taking my time with them. Anybody else who feels like tackling them, please chime in.
>>1: What do you think is missing from artist-run culture?
Freedom Marge Of Action
>>2:How could institutional artist-run culture be revitalised by >>the addition of those things?
Act fast and spontaneously. Show more artists and works.
Defend the works"after" they are shown instead of prior (which leads to the bureaucrat question..)
>>3:What do you think A.A. Bronson is proposing when he >>refers to "humiliation of the bureaucrat"?
That art is slave to administration. That art is not trusted for its own value but most be written about a year in advance
following certain precise regulations in order to get funds.
Having to declare a "mandate" can be sometimes embarassing. Like after years and years of existence a gallery must re-write the same dull pages.
>>4:Do you think ARCs are humble?
It depends who's at the desk. They're confusing, those
Arcs. You go there since years and they are always new employees asking who you are. But yes...they Are humble.
They can be intellectually ambitious but they don't
shake institutionalization very much. When they do, they hide in a remote parc (like Dare-Dare in Montreal).
I mean....isn't that humble to ask your audience to enter some building and take an elevator and find some "local"
(Belgo in Montreal) ? When it should be "BANG!"...as flashy as the Future Shop windows right underneath.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com
Oops...I thought that Goodreads had only an "extract" of
The Bronson text.
Than I realized that Jennifer's extract on her site and the Goodreads extracts weren't the same.
Than I see there is a whole article !!
Lol !! The last paragraph by Bronson now means something completely different !!
"humiliation of the bureaucrat": I first thought he was being reallly cynical. As in "ahhhh...don't we love Arcs...isn't it wonderful.....sigh..."
Then now I understand that he sees this humility as helping.
As in "Ahhhh.....Arcs....we might never turn into rich celebrities but aren't we free to do the hell we want...".
Just one pinch of irony there.
I guess he sees arcs as a lab for research, where your only concern is artistic exploration, and you don't even need to adress the audience since you're so humble and taken
by your studies. As you know that in the end you only get 500 bucks as help fund for your work, there's no fancy option.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com
1: What do you think is missing from artist-run culture?
-- As The Selector says: "missing words, missing words."
2:How could institutional artist-run culture be revitalised by the addition of those things?
-- "Our aims are best acheived by the addition of subtraction." -- Rene Levesque
3:What do you think A.A. Bronson is proposing when he refers to "humiliation of the bureaucrat"?
-- "Humiliation can be an empowering thing." -- Annie Sprinkle
4:Do you think ARCs are humble?
-- "Very 'eavy, very 'umble." -- Uriah Heap
Dark thoughts (that seem to belong in this thread, though I am not completely sure why): I am feeling sore afraid that in my lifetime we will see the kind of state oppression of art and artists in the United States of America that we historically associate with the Soviet Union and other repressive totalitarian regimes. Of course we don't have to wait to see repression of expression in the form of protest in America. Of course we don't have to wait to see American corporate interests exert repression in other countries. Our challenge as Canadian artists is (at least) to denounce, defend, and stand clear. Are we capable?
okay that was heavy (above). I apologise. I fell asleep on the couch watching "Manufacturing Consent" and it re-programmed my brain.
I agree with Von Bark's answers to Simpleposie, but here's my own take:
1: What do you think is missing from artist-run culture?
Public investment, public input, relevant mandate, excited and motivated participants.
2:How could institutional artist-run culture be revitalised by the addition of those things?
If a broader general public felt some ownership over these government -funded institutions, they might start clamouring for certain kinds of representation. And that would give the institutions an agenda to chew over...who do we represent, and how? And out of that process would come a renewed mandate, new people with invested energies, and hopefully new directions that us entrenched old farts can't conceive of. How do you get more people involved? Make a big public announcement (and not just on instant coffee and akimbo): this is your art gallery ... what do you want to see in it? Everyone is welcome to become a member because diverse input is required in order to set the agenda. Open it up and see what happens.
3:What do you think A.A. Bronson is proposing when he refers to "humiliation of the bureaucrat"?
I think he was describing, not proposing (and remember, this was written over 20 years ago): "At times, (usually annually) ANNPAC is defined by its apparition as a series of long and pedanticly democratic meetings, an endless ritual of calling and answering, proposal and revision, a bureaucratic means of reducing all to the lowest common denominator (although, in all fairness, I must point out that ANNPAC is conscious of and humiliated by this tendency, and further, in true Canadian fashion, conscious of the humiliation)."
My sense is that this paragraph shows a kind of backwards acceptance of the bureaucracy. A hold-your-nose and just get through it feeling of jamming round artist-pegs into square administrative-holes out of necessity. Now I'd say it's time to get over it. ARCs are institutions. Rather than fight it, lets play to our strengths. Public money is going right into contemporary art. And there's already (some) paid staff and (some) infrastructure in place to see it happen. Seems like an opportunity, no?
4:Do you think ARCs are humble?
nope. But I dunno why you ask, I'm not sure humility would help that much. It seems to me that courage and ambition are in order.
Membership at the ARCs is pretty much as wide open as it can get and/or ever has been since at least 1983. Something that has changed significantly at the ARCs since that time are the voting privileges at annual general meetings that used to be part and parcel of membership with those institutions but are no more. Nowadays decisions at this time of year are made by members of the board of directors.
Speaking from experience there's little at stake year in year out when the directors name the treasurer and bring their preapproved new members onto the board. Voting members are usually invited to attend - ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ - so much for the question "this is your gallery;what do you want to see?" When you say "open it up and see what happens" would you go so far as to allocate voting privileges to memberships of the general public who become members of ARCs?
To me, that's what AA Bronson was referring to because for a long time, that's the way it was - a whole board of directors could get taken out in a single I/2 hour AGM, signalling a complete change in mandate or aesthetic direction - a complete coup d'ARC. I believe A Space is the notorious historical example of this phenomenon. Now that's bureaucratic humiliation! Is that what you are suggesting Sal? Are the ARCs courageous, ambitious and yes, humble enough for that?
whoa duh - second paragraph second sentence should read :members are usually invited to attend and basically watch the vote - ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ - so much for the question "this is your gallery;what do you want to see?"
"would you go so far as to allocate voting privileges to memberships of the general public who become members of ARCs?" ...of course! this is exactly what I am saying. I honestly don't understand why this is such an "out-there" concept for people...it's freakin' tax-payers dollars, fer gawd's sake. And if there's a group of people with enough energy and motivation and votes behind them to take over and start running things their own way...well, isn't that kind of how democracy works? I'm not sure how an open vote gets to be called a "coup" unless it really wasn't open in the first place.
and I see what you mean, yes humility is involved. Those holding the fort gotta be able to let go of the idea that they are the only people who can run things in an interesting and beneficial way.
Power to you sister!
|
The latest Goodreads bulletin is on artist-run culture. Timothy Comeau has posted a very interesting article by AA Bronson of General Idea, first published in 1983, Andrew J. Patterson's preface to our book Money Value Art, and a link to the discussion on this blog in September. I'm really glad to see artist-run culture under the bell-jar right now. There is an article on the topic in the current C Magazine by Emily Vey Duke, and a piece on Art Metropole coming soon in Art On Paper magazine by Micah Toub.
AA Bronson's essay is a good history, delivered with a tongue-in-cheek biblical tone: Throughout the essay he returns again and again to the refrain of Canadian engagement with bureaucracy and protestant work ethic. I can relate, being endowed with a does of both of those traits. But AA was writing in 1983, which is starting to seem like a long time ago. I wonder what he would say now to the question: what engine fuels artist-run culture today? As anyone currently involved with ARCs (like Bronson) is keenly aware, there is a massive difference between doing the tedious grunt work to make your own project happen, and managing to inspire a team of young, creative employees.
Emily Vey Duke's essay is fabulous. I'm tempted to keyboard the whole thing and post it, but of course that would be stealing. She and partner Cooper Battersby are video artists who made their name speaking poetically to the youthful state of "Being Fucked Up." (I love this video.) Vey Duke is now an arts administrator, the new director of a Halifax artist-run centre called the Khyber Centre for the Arts. This represents a shift: And she succeeds! Halifax is a raw city when it comes to interracial politics. The catastrophic demolition of Africville hangs over everyone, and there is a constant tension in the "shady" neighbourhoods of the North End between emerging art-types and established poor and working class. The racial divide is not absolute, but it is visible. Vey Duke draws out this urban friction through a personal incident, and ends her article with a call: I'm grateful to Goodreads for posting Bronson's article and furthering this discussion. I have been thinking that the onus for inspiring young artists-as-bureaucrats lies with the older generation. After all, they need employees who will put in extra hours and excited, fresh, young board members to administer the institutions they created. But of course I've got it backwards. It is the job of people like Vey Duke, who see where urgency lies, to push the institutions into the shapes that can apply to the pressing Canadian art needs of today. Mabye the way to revitalise artist-run culture is to start by asking, what's missing?...and bring the very people who are missing it on board. And nobody has to toss out the great Canadian legacies of bureaucratic tendency and protestant work ethic.
- sally mckay 11-13-2004 7:03 pm
Broadly speaking, I wonder about the historical relationships between "great Canadian legacies of bureaucratic tendenc[ies]", the "protestant work ethic" (as an immigrant society, I found it interesting to see this term used here - especially in relation to arcs and transported outside of its original capitalist context) and the "Black teens" Vey Duke wants to keep out of jail - and how did artist-run cultures reach the point where they now have to ask "what's missing" and "bring the very people who are missing it on board"? Just some quick thoughts...
- visiting Canada (guest) 11-13-2004 9:58 pm
That's a big -- and very good -- question. I have been reading a basic Canadian history textbook* lately cause I'm too ignorant. I'm only up to the early 1900's when Laurier was busy restricting Asian immigration. Futher (according to the book), "by the end of the Laurier years the full force of the Department of the Interior's administrative machinery was also being applied to discourage further immigration of blacks, who had made up 9 per cent of the 303,608 immigrants from the United States who had come to Canada by 1911." And, of course, there were also huge battles raging about schools, starting in Manitoba which was primarily populated by Roman Catholic and French-speaking people when they joined the country in 1870: "By 1891, however the population had increased fivefold and less than 20 per cent of Manitobans were Catholics. Influential local politicians like Clifford Sifton and Joseph Martin had already concluded that Manitoba's Catholic schools were of poor quality, costly and inefficient. Conscious of the varied racial and cultural backgrounds of Manitoba's newcomers, they reasoned that perpetuation of denominational schools would raise up in Manitoba a populace hopelessly divided by language, customs, and religion, one with no common devotion to their new homeland." (emphasis mine)
*Granatstein, J.L., et al, Twentieth Century Canada, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1983.
- sally mckay 11-14-2004 6:11 pm
More pertinent to Vey Duke's essay, is, of course, the mid-1960s demolition of the black community of Africville in Halifax. This quote below is from Pamela Brown's 1996 essay "Africville: Urban Removal in Canada," which you can read in its entirety online.
- sally mckay 11-14-2004 6:23 pm
"Maybe the way to revitalise artist-run culture is to start by asking, what's missing?" Sally McKay
"And what better place to develop the interior kingdom of the soul, than in the humiliation of the bureaucrat, the constant death of palace coups, the submission of rational consciousness to this sleep-song drifting down the long chain of dream-palaces, this idealised vision of the "museum", of history, in which the artist animates the quaking body of the institution with his own obsessive will?"A.A. Bronson
Hey Sally,
I had two, err, well four questions.
1: What do you think is missing from artist-run culture?
2:How could institutional artist-run culture be revitalised by the addition of those things?
3:What do you think A.A. Bronson is proposing when he refers to "humiliation of the bureaucrat"?
4:Do you think ARCs are humble?
- J at simpleposie (guest) 11-14-2004 10:51 pm
d-oh! Micah Toub just emailed me, and I got the name of the publication he's writing for wrong! It's corrected now. Very sorry everyone!!
J, those are big questions. I am taking my time with them. Anybody else who feels like tackling them, please chime in.
- sally mckay 11-15-2004 7:11 pm
>>1: What do you think is missing from artist-run culture?
Freedom Marge Of Action
>>2:How could institutional artist-run culture be revitalised by >>the addition of those things?
Act fast and spontaneously. Show more artists and works.
Defend the works"after" they are shown instead of prior (which leads to the bureaucrat question..)
>>3:What do you think A.A. Bronson is proposing when he >>refers to "humiliation of the bureaucrat"?
That art is slave to administration. That art is not trusted for its own value but most be written about a year in advance
following certain precise regulations in order to get funds.
Having to declare a "mandate" can be sometimes embarassing. Like after years and years of existence a gallery must re-write the same dull pages.
>>4:Do you think ARCs are humble?
It depends who's at the desk. They're confusing, those
Arcs. You go there since years and they are always new employees asking who you are. But yes...they Are humble.
They can be intellectually ambitious but they don't
shake institutionalization very much. When they do, they hide in a remote parc (like Dare-Dare in Montreal).
I mean....isn't that humble to ask your audience to enter some building and take an elevator and find some "local"
(Belgo in Montreal) ? When it should be "BANG!"...as flashy as the Future Shop windows right underneath.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com
- Cedric Caspesyan (guest) 11-17-2004 2:08 am
Oops...I thought that Goodreads had only an "extract" of
The Bronson text.
Than I realized that Jennifer's extract on her site and the Goodreads extracts weren't the same.
Than I see there is a whole article !!
Lol !! The last paragraph by Bronson now means something completely different !!
"humiliation of the bureaucrat": I first thought he was being reallly cynical. As in "ahhhh...don't we love Arcs...isn't it wonderful.....sigh..."
Then now I understand that he sees this humility as helping.
As in "Ahhhh.....Arcs....we might never turn into rich celebrities but aren't we free to do the hell we want...".
Just one pinch of irony there.
I guess he sees arcs as a lab for research, where your only concern is artistic exploration, and you don't even need to adress the audience since you're so humble and taken
by your studies. As you know that in the end you only get 500 bucks as help fund for your work, there's no fancy option.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com
- anonymous (guest) 11-17-2004 2:40 am
1: What do you think is missing from artist-run culture?
-- As The Selector says: "missing words, missing words."
2:How could institutional artist-run culture be revitalised by the addition of those things?
-- "Our aims are best acheived by the addition of subtraction." -- Rene Levesque
3:What do you think A.A. Bronson is proposing when he refers to "humiliation of the bureaucrat"?
-- "Humiliation can be an empowering thing." -- Annie Sprinkle
4:Do you think ARCs are humble?
-- "Very 'eavy, very 'umble." -- Uriah Heap
- Von Bark (guest) 11-20-2004 4:02 am
Dark thoughts (that seem to belong in this thread, though I am not completely sure why): I am feeling sore afraid that in my lifetime we will see the kind of state oppression of art and artists in the United States of America that we historically associate with the Soviet Union and other repressive totalitarian regimes. Of course we don't have to wait to see repression of expression in the form of protest in America. Of course we don't have to wait to see American corporate interests exert repression in other countries. Our challenge as Canadian artists is (at least) to denounce, defend, and stand clear. Are we capable?
- sally mckay 11-20-2004 7:33 pm
okay that was heavy (above). I apologise. I fell asleep on the couch watching "Manufacturing Consent" and it re-programmed my brain.
I agree with Von Bark's answers to Simpleposie, but here's my own take:
1: What do you think is missing from artist-run culture?
Public investment, public input, relevant mandate, excited and motivated participants.
2:How could institutional artist-run culture be revitalised by the addition of those things?
If a broader general public felt some ownership over these government -funded institutions, they might start clamouring for certain kinds of representation. And that would give the institutions an agenda to chew over...who do we represent, and how? And out of that process would come a renewed mandate, new people with invested energies, and hopefully new directions that us entrenched old farts can't conceive of. How do you get more people involved? Make a big public announcement (and not just on instant coffee and akimbo): this is your art gallery ... what do you want to see in it? Everyone is welcome to become a member because diverse input is required in order to set the agenda. Open it up and see what happens.
3:What do you think A.A. Bronson is proposing when he refers to "humiliation of the bureaucrat"?
I think he was describing, not proposing (and remember, this was written over 20 years ago): "At times, (usually annually) ANNPAC is defined by its apparition as a series of long and pedanticly democratic meetings, an endless ritual of calling and answering, proposal and revision, a bureaucratic means of reducing all to the lowest common denominator (although, in all fairness, I must point out that ANNPAC is conscious of and humiliated by this tendency, and further, in true Canadian fashion, conscious of the humiliation)."
My sense is that this paragraph shows a kind of backwards acceptance of the bureaucracy. A hold-your-nose and just get through it feeling of jamming round artist-pegs into square administrative-holes out of necessity. Now I'd say it's time to get over it. ARCs are institutions. Rather than fight it, lets play to our strengths. Public money is going right into contemporary art. And there's already (some) paid staff and (some) infrastructure in place to see it happen. Seems like an opportunity, no?
4:Do you think ARCs are humble?
nope. But I dunno why you ask, I'm not sure humility would help that much. It seems to me that courage and ambition are in order.
- sally mckay 11-22-2004 8:08 pm
Membership at the ARCs is pretty much as wide open as it can get and/or ever has been since at least 1983. Something that has changed significantly at the ARCs since that time are the voting privileges at annual general meetings that used to be part and parcel of membership with those institutions but are no more. Nowadays decisions at this time of year are made by members of the board of directors.
Speaking from experience there's little at stake year in year out when the directors name the treasurer and bring their preapproved new members onto the board. Voting members are usually invited to attend - ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ - so much for the question "this is your gallery;what do you want to see?" When you say "open it up and see what happens" would you go so far as to allocate voting privileges to memberships of the general public who become members of ARCs?
To me, that's what AA Bronson was referring to because for a long time, that's the way it was - a whole board of directors could get taken out in a single I/2 hour AGM, signalling a complete change in mandate or aesthetic direction - a complete coup d'ARC. I believe A Space is the notorious historical example of this phenomenon. Now that's bureaucratic humiliation! Is that what you are suggesting Sal? Are the ARCs courageous, ambitious and yes, humble enough for that?
- J at simpleposie (guest) 11-22-2004 9:13 pm
whoa duh - second paragraph second sentence should read :members are usually invited to attend and basically watch the vote - ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ - so much for the question "this is your gallery;what do you want to see?"
- J at simpleposie (guest) 11-22-2004 9:22 pm
"would you go so far as to allocate voting privileges to memberships of the general public who become members of ARCs?" ...of course! this is exactly what I am saying. I honestly don't understand why this is such an "out-there" concept for people...it's freakin' tax-payers dollars, fer gawd's sake. And if there's a group of people with enough energy and motivation and votes behind them to take over and start running things their own way...well, isn't that kind of how democracy works? I'm not sure how an open vote gets to be called a "coup" unless it really wasn't open in the first place.
- sally mckay 11-22-2004 9:24 pm
and I see what you mean, yes humility is involved. Those holding the fort gotta be able to let go of the idea that they are the only people who can run things in an interesting and beneficial way.
- sally mckay 11-22-2004 9:27 pm
Power to you sister!
- J at simpleposie (guest) 11-22-2004 10:04 pm