Question of the Week: What is regional art?
Followers of this blog will no doubt understand where this question comes from. When the Taubman Museum of Art announced its new admission prices last week, the thread of comments took off in an interesting direction. Specifically, a handful of commentators went beyond the usual criticisms of the museum and asserted that the Floyd County artist Charlie Brouwer’s temporary sculpture “Rise Up Roanoke” shouldn’t be considered a regionally relevant piece of art. (Brouwer himself eventually posted a graceful response.) My own questions as to what does make art “regionally relevant” essentially went unaddressed.
So, I thought it might be worth attempting a more general discussion. What is regional art? Is it art done within a region? Is it art done about a region? Is it art done by an artist from a region? All of the above? None? Let me know what you think, and please, tell me why you think it.
March 14, 2011 - 12:06 PM
I think that regional art is art that is created by someone who lives in the region. The end.
Using the definition of the word “regional”, any art that is “of or relating to a particular region” would qualify as regional art. It doesn’t seem complicated to me.
Well,it appears that the debate may come down to the location of the artist versus the “of or relating to a particular region” in the artwork itself. I’m sticking by my initial comment and here is the reasoning: If, for example, NYC artist traveled through this area on the way back to NYC and was moved by the landscape and started painting scenes of Va. landscape back in NYC, then that is not OUR regional art (in my opinion). The artist is not from here and while his art may relate to this area, there is no sense of ownership of him or his work by this particular community at large.
In contract, if a local artist paints city-scapes here and then gets showings out of the area and eventually becomes a biggie deal in the art world outside of this area but still lives here, is nurtured here to be creative, etc., I think we still claim that artist as a regional artist. And even if that artist’s work is not about this “region”, it still was created here and part of this economy, culture, and community.
That is an overly simplistic sort of explanation. But regional art is produced by regional artists. It is not the subject matter of the artwork, it is the community in which the artist resides.
For completeness sake, I’m going to make note of some of the comments that have appeared in other places, namely Facebook:
#
Sharyn McCrumb: Well, one thing I think it ISN’T is “something done by somebody who happens to live here.” Stephen King is not a “regional” author in Maine.
#
Stephanie Klein-Davis: Art that is reflective of that region! It’s not about the artist. It’s about the work.
#
Joanne Merriam: Depends on the speaker. Some people mean simply that the author is from that region, others that the art is somehow representative of the region, and still others mean it as a backhanded compliment – you’re a good *regional* artist, dear, but not worthy of a national audience.
#
Southwest Virginia Artists: http://www.racc.org/ – offers this opening statement “Stewards of public and private investments in arts and culture, and works to create an environment in which the arts and culture of the region can flourish and prosper. RACC is funded in part by local, regional, state and federal governments to provide grants to artists and operating support to art organizations in the tri-county region”.
@Sharyn, if you don’t think that Maine claims Stephen King as their own, then I think you would be wrong.
This entire topic is being raised because a bunch of tools on another thread were stating that the Rise Up Roanoke wasn’t representative of this region simply because the artist builds various ladder structures in different locations outside this region. This despite the fact that it is fashioned after the star, which obviously relates to this region AND the fact that the artist lives in the area. So, Rise Up Roanoke is regional from either point of view.
However, what I am saying is this: had the ladder sculpture been built by an artist who lives in California, traveled here and looked around for a day and then constructed a star, that, in my opinion, would *not* be regional art. Regional art has to be nurtured in the region by artists who live here. That doesn’t preclude them from being or becoming nationally recognized. Being known outside this area does not been that some how the artists roots have been cut out from under him.
Back to using Stephen King as an example, show me one single book he’s written that doesn’t have either it’s heart or at least a foot in Maine. Okay?
How does one classify Sally Mann? Is she a regional artist? Certainly she’s a national artist….
and international artist? Or other artists of national and international renown? Personally I think regional art has as many definitions as art… okay, maybe there is a bit of a qualifier in there but really…
I would think “regional art” would somehow have to be evocative of the region, right? Just being from the region isn’t enough to make it regional.
Example A: A bluegrass musician from Roanoke would certainly be considered a “regional” artist, because bluegrass is a music form widely identified with our part of the state and country. That musician might be nationally or internationally known (as some of ours are), but it’s still a “regional” art form because bluegrass is identified with us and not, say, Pasadena. But a heavy metal band from Roanoke wouldn’t be regional; not sure metal has a region.
Example B: Some of you saw Kenley Smith’s very fine trilogy of plays recently at Studio Roanoke: “Devil Sedan,” “12 Stations of the Cross” and “The New Testament.” Those plays were based in our region and certainly drew from it and reflected it in lots of ways; I’d consider that “regional” art — it’s also regional art that’s gotten national attention.
By contrast, my play “Red Moon Rising in the East” about the Soviet space program — which Mike generously wrote about when it played in Minnesota last fall — sure doesn’t have a regional feel to it at all. So even though I’m from the region, I wouldn’t consider that “regional” art.
I think someone’s got to be able to look/listen at whatever the piece of art is and say/think “wow, that really feels like (insert name of region)” because “that’s clearly influenced by the artist having lived in (insert name of region.)”
– Dwayne Yancey
That is a very compelling argument Dwayne, but I disagree. I still hold that what defines “regional art” is what is nurtured in, and grows out of the region (and impacts the regional economy). If what you are saying were the case, then an artist living in this area, who grew up here and was influenced by everything he saw around him his whole life, but he painted abstract paintings…then that would not be regional art? Even if he became famous all over the place but remained living in the area and spent his money here? Or taking that argument in a broader sense…would that mean that completely abstract art would never be regional?
Or take yourself for instance…are you absolutely certain that your southwest Virginian sensibilities had zero influence on your play? Is it possible for you to write in a wholly un-southwest Virginian manner or point of view?
Furthermore, why can’t this region claim you as an artist that it nurtured regardless of the form your art takes? If we follow your line of reasoning, then the art of a region is much more limited and cannot really evolve…? But we can agree to disagree