Fresh Paint/Blog Guidelines
“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the
truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand.”
-Pablo Picasso
In general, all written blog content may be revised until you are satisfied. You will receive feedback. You
are encouraged to use multimedia components as you become familiar with them. There is no downside
to taking risks.
General college-level criteria for written work
Grades for all written work are based on the following:
An above average (grade A) will:
1.
Convey detailed and sustained insight into the subject matter with vigor clarity and depth.
2.
Hold positive interest, feeling, and/or attention of a general reader.
3.
Contain elements of vividness and special interest in the use of language.
4.
Be written in a fluent, polished manner that strengthens the impact of the writer’s ideas.
An average (grade B) will:
1.
Convey a central idea and focus into subject matter with clarity.
2.
Display clear organization, directed with purpose, and sustaining interest of the reader.
3.
Use appropriate language that is grammatically clean.
4.
Be written skillfully enough so as not to distract attention from the writer’s ideas.
A below average (grade C) will:
1.
Conform to the purpose of the assignment.
2.
Have some form of organization, reasonable directness, and competence.
3.
Use accessible language that is free of serious errors in grammar, pronunciation, and word usage.
4.
Be written with an identifiable introduction, body, and conclusion.
Fresh Paint Posts
New York Times Arts Section. Read the art sections daily.
These posts are one of the several ways in which we will use our class blog.
Critical commentary:
Length: 500 words
On a bi-weekly rotation in groups of three, everyone will be responsible for facilitating a critical
commentary that relates New York Times art coverage to class discussion and course readings or the
reverse for the rest of us to ponder and respond to. You will need cite and reference an article from the
New York Times in your post. We’ll never cover everything there is to say in our class discussions and
events. These blog pots and the comments that respond to them provide us a way to extend the
conversation. Within each group, each author should pursue an individual concern. This is your space,
and I’d like you to raise your own points and questions about the arts that we’re immersing ourselves in.
The rest of the class may then respond by leaving comments on any or all of the individual postings.
Schedule for posting:
Groups post by Saturday 10AM on the week they sign up for so that everyone may have a chance to
comment over the following week.
Group 1 (9/15)
Group 2 (9/29)
Group 3 (10/6)
Group 4 (10/20)
Group 5 (11/2)
Group 6 (11/17)
Examples:
First example shifts off an art news story to raise a broader issue.
Informants of History
What? A Shocking headline from the NYTs blazed across my browser last night, “Civil Rights
Photographer Unmasked as an Informer” (13 September 2010). The photograph
of the Memphis sanitation workers strikers signs “I am a Man” was taken by Ernest Withers. His legacy
as the “original civil rights photographer” was also the subject of a recent International Center of
Photography exhibit. On Sept 12—oddly, the same day the exhibit closed—a two-year investigative
report was released and published by The Commercial Appeal documenting Withers close collaboration
with two agents of the F. B. I in the 1960s. Robbie Brown’s coverage in the NYTs highlights how
Withers “provided biographical information and scheduling details to two F.B. I. agents in the bureau’s
Memphis domestic surveillance program.”
Ernest Withers
Evidence suggesting that Withers was paid is the most damaging to his reputation. Historian David
Garrow, quoted in the article, notes that many civil rights workers who gave confidential interviews with
agents were automatically classified as “informants.” Withers passed away in 2007 at the age of 85. In
light of these revelations, he is unable to defend himself, a point his daughter Rosalind makes in the
article. She views the report as inconclusive. I tend to side with her skepticism, mainly because the report
was just released and the most inflammatory charges in it are making news. My thoughts are stirred by a
remark by Brown who writes: “But now an unsettling asterisk must be added to the legacy of Ernest C.
Withers, one of the most celebrated photographers of the civil rights era: He was a paid F.B. I. informer.”
(insert link to article)
Must an asterisk be placed by his name? If he was, in fact, a paid informer for two years while in
Memphis, does that diminish his commitment to civil rights? Does his body of work suffer as well? His
images of Martin L. King and others are what we “see” when we study the history of the civil rights era.
They are part of our collective consciousness. What questions do you raise over his alleged actions? Is
this an ethical controversy, an artistic one, or both? Does an artist’s legacy rest on the impact of their
work or can revelations of unsavory personal conduct transform the experience of viewing art?
_____________________________
Second example launches from the subject to take a position about it.
Grounds Zero Performing Arts Center
In a recent article, Robin Pogrebin states that there is now ONLY four months to build the performing arts
center in Ground Zero (“Ground Zero Arts Center: Time Is Not on Its Side” (insert link to article) This
is a project that is hopefully going to be accomplished, but a cultural affairs officer says that this project
has a narrow opportunity. If in four months, the money needed to build (40 million to secure the project
and about 50 million more for costs) the underpinnings needed for the center is not available, then the
project will be canceled. It is said that the reason for the performing arts center to be at Ground Zero is
because it is the “key to urbanism of the whole district.” It also seems that the project will not be started
until after 2013 or 2016 until the PATH station is finished.
A debate is going on whether or not the arts center should move to Liberty Street. It will cost more money
than at the World Trade Center (around 300 million). I believe that the performing arts center should be
built at Ground Zero because it is double the money to build it at Liberty Street. At the same time, I do
not believe it is fair that they give them such little time to have the money ready. We are gaining a lot if
we build the center, not only tourists but New Yorkers will enjoy a new art foundation.
So the question is do you think that it is worth building a performing arts center? Do we really need one at
Ground Zero? Should they build it at Liberty Street even though costs are higher? Is it fair giving them
such little time to gather the money needed?