David Koren

Art and Populism on Governors Island

In Friday’s Weekend section of The New York Times, Edward Rothstein wrote a fairly evenhanded story about Governors Island as “A Playground for the Arts." As a follow-up, Ken Johnson contributed a dismissive and offensive post on the Times blog, the thrust of which is that good art requires money, the and if we want serious art people to take the art on Governors Island seriously, the best way for that to happen is to raise a few million dollars and throw an international art exhibition. Because, he writes, “Art just isn’t the kind of thing that lends itself to no-budget, laissez-faire populism.” He goes on to dismiss the work of No Longer Empty, FIGMENT, the Sculptor’s Guild, and even 4Heads, before their exhibition has even opened.

In his critique, Johnson manages to miss the point entirely. The art on Governors Island isn’t for him. And it’s not for the elite tastemakers who have decided who lives and dies in the art world for centuries. No, this is art for the rest of us. For everybody… for families, for communities, for every-day citizens who yearn for inspiration, for artists trying new things, and for connecting all of these pieces to each other in an accessible, fun, and interactive environment that encourages experimentation instead of censure.

Because Governors Island, unlike New York’s museums and galleries, is our place. It belongs to all of us. So the art that succeeds there is, by definition, populist (as you can see in videos of FIGMENT's projects). And, in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, when foundations, individuals, and governments are stretched to their limits, that means low budget... reflecting the hardship in the lives of the people creating and enjoying that art.

And if this means that, to the elite sensibility, the FIGMENT minigolf course and interactive sculpture garden—enjoyed by tens of thousands of children and adults through summer at no cost (unlike MoMA, the Met, etc.)—is “an ugly mess.” Well, so be it. Better to be loved to death by the people of New York City than admired by an elite echelon of the art establishment.

We believe that public art is art created by and for the public. And Governors Island, as a place for all of us to share equally, is the ideal place for public art. And yes, this is a populist idea, and the point that Johnson misses entirely.

And, after all, as jaded as Johnson is about art that doesn't "thrill" him, what if something really important and innovative were actually going on here? How could Johnson tell? He is clearly so disinterested in populist forms that, if he had been writing at the time, he would have dismissed impressionism, dadaism, naturalism, abstract expressionism, pop art, performance art, and every other arts movement that came from the people, as opposed to those innovations, such as they are, that come from the establishment.

We believe in participation, the idea that we can all collaborate to create great art together that none of us could have created in isolation. FIGMENT has grown rapidly over the last four years on this simple idea, creating better and better participatory and interactive art each year. It's true that we're not in competition with the Venice Biennale, but that isn't really the goal. The fact that we're having this conversation in the blog of The New York Times is evidence that we're making tremendous progress in our goal to develop the island into an international arts destination focused on participation.

Mr. Johnson, we invite you to reconsider your position on what makes art important to society, and to learn more about FIGMENT and the other arts groups working on the island. We would love for you to join us and to be a participant in what we're building.

David Koren
Executive Producer
FIGMENT

 

 

More Texting, Less Driving

When I was at the ARC-Interiors conference in late September in Miami, speaking on "A Sense of Purpose: The New Reality for Architecture Firms and How Principals will Need to Adapt" I had lunch at the conference after I spoke at a table with a bunch of nice conference attendees and exhibitors. Before long, the conversation turned to current events, and we touched on the controversy over texting while driving.

Without really thinking, in the middle of the conversation, I interjected, "The problem isn't texting... It's driving." I went with it: "I mean, texting doesn't kill people, driving does. The problem is that we drive too much, and driving is just too easy. We need to drive less, and when we do, it needs to be more difficult."

One of the others at the table asked, "Yeah, I need somebody to pick me up at my house and drive me to work."

I threw out, "We have that already. It's called a train."

Suddenly, I realized that I was in a group of people from all around the US, none of which lived in New York or one of the few other cities in the US where you can live a full and complete life without owning a car.

"Maybe we should spend less public money on roads, and more on trains. If the roads were more dangerous, you couldn't text while driving because you'd hit a pothole. Part of the problem here is that driving is too easy because our roads are too well-maintained. People have too much free time when they drive."

The entire controversy, and this conversation, points out to me that our dependence on the automobile, and all the evils that go with it (foreign oil, pollution, suburban sprawl, shopping malls, road rage, alienation, long commutes of wasted time) is a choice, a choice we can reverse. It doesn't have to be this way. And it shouldn't be this way.

I'm reminded of the James Howard Kunstler quote, that the suburbs "represent the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world." The current controversy over texting while driving should be another wake-up call. The problem isn't texting, it's driving. Driving kills. We should be driving less, and texting more. People, get on the train. Get off the road. You're wasting resources, you're wasting time, and you're running the risk of killing somebody, or yourself. Why live this way?

The City from Inside and Out

I just got a email from someone in Michigan that I don't know personally. The email went to a number of people, and I'm on one of the lists the email went to. The author of the email is trying to find a carpenter for a work-related project in Oneonta. The email made me realize a few things at once: (1) I know very few carpenters. I should know more carpenters. Carpenters are useful. (2) I have no idea where Oneonta is. Upstate? That's my guess. And (3) Cities, from the outside, are fixed points. "Oh, I need help in Oneonta! That's close to New York City! I'll write to people there!" From the inside, however, cities are entire worlds. I'm in New York City, and anything outside is someplace else. Part of this distinction, of course, relates to transportation. Cities are places where you don't drive, so it's a big deal to go outside. While outside of the city, you have have a lot of freedom of mobility, until you try to go into the city, and then you have to park your car (and probably pay a lot of money to do so) and then figure out how to get where you're going (gasp!) on foot or (double gasp!) using mass transportation. What's interesting here is that from the perspective of someone in Michigan, with an automobile-focused existence, the fact that New York City is close to Oneonta, relatively speaking, would make me a good guess to find a carpenter there. But, in fact, I'd far more likely be able to find a carpenter in San Francisco. And, in fact, because I've been to San Francisco many times and I know what the steps are to get there (buy plane ticket, go to airport, get on plane, etc.) it someone can seem closer to Oneonta (steps: figure out where Oneonta is, figure out if Metro North goes there, figure out if I need a taxi, figure out a number to call to get a taxi, etc.). A city is, in a way, something outside of conventional geography.