In conversations we’ve had with members and visitors to the [&] Guild Hall, it has become clear that there are some misconceptions about where [&] came from and what we’re trying to do here. These are mostly harmless and often reasonable assumptions, but it does actually make a difference how and why our little artist community exists.
When we last left off, I was talking about the "why?" of artist careers in Macon. I've since had a few days (though most of them were action-packed and not conducive to deep thought), and in the meantime some things happening peripherally to [&] in the art community, as well as some conversations that I've had are leading me down a path to a more comprehensive understanding of where we need to go from here with regards to alternative modes and foci of arts education.*
In the lead up to a discussion on alternative arts education, I'd like to talk about something more fundamental that has become a major conversation point in the Guild Hall over the last few weeks and was the focus of the second-day keynote presentation at the AASF - the question of who controls normative space, ways people try to access it, and whether it's a realistic option to completely reject the norm
It’s late and raining, and I’ve spent the last 12 hours listening to and thinking and talking about utopian responses to intransigent social problems.
The term “local artist” is a spectrum. On one end, you can be from a place since you were born and your parents were born and so far back your family is part of everybody’s stories. On the other end, you can be “from” one place and living comfortably far away from there for the rest of your life. You can be new to a place and be a local artist there, at the same time as everywhere else you’ve ever lived – simultaneously. With all these meanings, it would seem that the title “local artist” becomes meaningless… but far from it.