Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Survival of the Most Creative

In an event blending my two favorite topics (art & politics...OK, so there's a bit of business thrown in as well, but the best business is a bit of both anyway, no?), the Louise T Blouin Foundation is hosting a three-day "Global Creative Leadership Summit" in New York. Artinfo.com has a short article here. It started yesterday, but there are plenty of panel discussions today and tomorrow. No where on their site could I find information about tickets or whether the event is open to folks without an invitation (I can't get up there anyway), but they are providing a live webcast on their site. The panel I'm most interested in that takes place today is

In a flatter and closer world, winning the battle for ideas is determining the successes and failures of business and government. How do you create a company, nation, or university that thinks better and embraces change? Business empires rise and fall. Why? What are the warning signs and how can we spot them? What do we know today about the brain that we can apply to leadership, motivation and creativity in corporations, schools and governments?

Bradbury Anderson, Vice Chairman and CEO, Best Buy Co,, Inc.
Chuck Close, Artist
Joseph LeDoux, Professor of Neuroscience, New York University
Jimmy Wales, Founder, Wikia Inc. and Founder and Chairman, Wikimedia Foundation

Mike Oreskes, Executive Editor, International Herald Tribune

Other topics include
And the one I'm almost afraid to watch:

Video games, virtual reality, chat rooms, communities—titillate, transport and connect in good ways and bad. What does the Internet do to the brain? To the brain of your child? What are the social and psychological implications of “always connected, always on?” After 50 years, what will the Internet-conditioned human being be?
I know many of the speakers at this event are controversial, but I have to hand it to the Louise T Blouin Foundation for having the vision to organize this. Anyone get in to see any of it?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry to beat a dead horse but they couldnt find one woman to be on a panel, isnt everyone getting sick of this already and why does it still go one?

11/14/2006 08:56:00 AM  
Blogger Candy Minx said...

Sick of it, well, just not going to slit my wrists about it. It's just typical. Um, people still say "mankind" all the time, don't even make an effort. Besides, as long as parents keep treating their children with different genders, differently, then we'll keep cranking out male power positions and choices.

Even contempoary parents believe in the silly concept that there is a difference between genders. Gender difference was only invented a few centuries ago. Silly rabbits.

11/14/2006 02:34:00 PM  
Blogger marseye said...

Some how a non amongus and candy,
you overlooked the fact:
Louise T. Blouin is the title founder here..promoting culture and enhancing creativity across the world if it wasnt for her none of these men would have a stage for all there balls to play. And we all know the controversy around Arianna Huffington? If that aint enouph for the womans team? There are even more, it doesnt matter how may the number itssubstance! And if you want more female numbers get your bodies there!

11/14/2006 03:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Bizarre choice of panelists !!

Is this an art piece?


11/14/2006 04:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why would as a woman i sit in on another of these male love fests, someone told me last night at MOMA they had a panel of chris wool, clemente, luc tuymans discussing brice marden, yuck!!!!!!!!!!11

11/14/2006 04:23:00 PM  
Blogger Hungry Hyaena said...


Just to be a stickler here:

"Gender difference was only invented a few centuries ago."

Gender bias, based on perceived or imagined differences is much older than you suggest. Ever since hunter-gatherer tribes ceased being nomadic and adopted an agragrian lifestyle and tiered social structure, roles were assigned by gender. I think the debate regarding the substance of these assumptions is what you refer to, not the bias itself.

At any rate, I agree generally...it's just the lover of anthropology in me that balked.

11/14/2006 05:22:00 PM  
Blogger Bill Gusky said...

Nearly all of my favorite contemporary artists are female, so the Boring Testostericle Choir puzzles me as well.

I'll add this, although it probably sounds mean and I'm sure someone will disagree with me:

Is Chuck Close really a strong example of a creative personality?

11/14/2006 05:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

One of the very first web artist and artist who dealt with these themes of shifted meanings of the bodily through the websphere was Vera Frenkel.

But for some reason, Chuck Close, director of Whitney, one of the most non-generous museum in sharing images of their collections on their website, and an artist whose lifelong output, regardless of his tremendous skill, looks more like an Orwellian nightmare, was the person the curator thought was in urgent need of having a conversation with the director of Best Buy.

Cedric Caspesyan

11/14/2006 06:14:00 PM  
Anonymous David said...

Is Chuck Close really a strong example of a creative personality?

Bill, are you serious?

11/14/2006 08:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am calling the MOMA and Bouin F. tomorrow.

Women are people too!



11/15/2006 12:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Rebel Belle said...

MLS, it's freaking unbelievable isn't it? What arrogance. You can always count on MOMA to do the right thing and include women.

11/15/2006 08:08:00 AM  
Blogger jafabrit said...

It looks very interesting, but I do have to agree with some of the other commentators regarding the lack of women representing the arts and architecture? Not ONE in that grouping??? Couldn't they find any?

11/15/2006 08:30:00 AM  
Blogger jafabrit said...

ps. I would have thought Wangari Muta Maathai an excellent choice in the nobel laureates list. Wonder if they just couldn't get any of the women laureates to join the panel or just didn't ask?

11/15/2006 08:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i am sick of chuck close being on every damn panel, board, committee, and used as an example of the creative genius, wheelchair or not, i amm just sick of him all over the place, chuck, please give us a break already

11/15/2006 08:57:00 AM  
Anonymous ml said...

There's a show of Dennis Hopper's work at Ace Gallery in LA right now. Mostly photographs of artists and actors. Of the massive number of photos, only three depict women and those three are in a far back room. If you think it's a boys club now...

11/15/2006 10:44:00 AM  
Blogger Bill Gusky said...

David, I'm dead serious. My opinion is that Close bogged down in giant heads and hasn't budged since. What's it been, forty years now?

I think many artists of Close's own generation are much more creative, and many more artists since are more creative.

11/15/2006 12:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

To give credit to Chuck Close and his only fan in this thread (David P.), the man has been extremely creative in constantly renewing (and exploring) different techniques, approaches and processes in his artmaking. In fact most of his art is inasmuch "about" the way it's done as about the subject it depicts. It's formal.

But the reason some of us bitch him today is that he's been quite autistic at exploring the same theme since over 40 years (including an obsessed insistance on self-portrait, which I was sort of told at school was always the best option in art when you had nothing else to say...because somehow nobody could ever reproach it to you...Well that was until today I guess).

Maybe he's done some project lately that involved computer pixellisation? Is that why he was invited?

I do am fascinated by Chuck Close to some extent, but at the same time he bores me to hell. Quite paradoxical.

Cedric Caspesyan

11/15/2006 05:01:00 PM  
Anonymous david said...

By using the same subject matter again and again, it's the same as saying there's no subject matter.

The thing I enjoy about his work, and that Cedric seems to agree about, is his extremely inventive explorations of process, of the phenomenon of visual mixture, and of the artifacts (visual distortions) generated by the mechanical reproduction of images.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to like his work, but I don't think it's fair to just dismiss it either.

11/15/2006 05:39:00 PM  
Blogger jafabrit said...

I never mentioned not liking chuck close, so you are not his only fan on this thread cedric. I just find it remarkable that in two categories of panelists art/architecture and nobel laureates there is not ONE woman.

11/15/2006 08:14:00 PM  
Blogger painterdog said...

lets see some artist who painted the same thing over and over again or at least variations.

Vermeer, Rembrandt, Peter Calesz, Judith Leyster, Pollick, Jenny Saville, Ensor,

I like some of Closes work myself, some I find boring.

I do see the point of this panel making people pissed because of the omitance of women and for that matter minorites.

11/16/2006 03:01:00 AM  
Blogger Bill Gusky said...

David I don't dismiss Close's work at all. I just think that very little new has happened since perhaps 1980. And in fact I must agree with your point about his explorations of process. I'd just suggest that while these explorations are intellectually adroit, creatively they're not on the same level as the explorations of other artists working at the same time. It was just a comparison, that's all. I can't dismiss Close.

Painterdog, sure, other artists have done the same thing over and over. Morandi is a superb example. I don't look to him for creativity so much as for an amazing touch to his work and a very subtle and seductive use of color that I find very compelling.

An example in music: many Vivaldi compositions sound very much the same, and he doesn't compare creatively for example with Bach, whose works are quite different. I would lay odds that more music lovers consider Bach the more creative of the two.

Vermeer: I'd say there are strong differences from one painting to the next compositionally and in the meanings he works with. Considering the time in which he worked and the limitations of media, his genius and creativity are clearly enormous.

But were there 250 known Vermeers instead of fewer than 20, and were all of them to be reiterations of for example the girl with the pearl earring, except that in each painting the girl was a different girl, and perhaps in later works the image was partly developed through a clever use of non-realistic strokes that blended perfectly with distance, then I think you'd have a stronger Vermeer - Chuck Close comparison.

11/18/2006 02:58:00 PM  
Blogger painterdog said...

Well the yes one could see that Vermeer and Close are not doing the same thing in the literial sense, I was thinking more on the level of subject, Veermer's paintings are all domestic scenes, or people from his circle, which was a product of the tates in the calvinst invironment of his country.

Close is doing the same on that level, painting people around him, and his family.

I don't think Close is boring because he paints the same thing over and over, what is interesting to me, is his use of material and how he has changed to accommodate his illness.

Bach is so much more interesting than Vivaldi, but then he was miles a head of most composers of his time, except maybe Domenico Scarlatti who wrote some amazing keyboard works. I recently heard this Scarlatti harpsichord Sonata In D, K.535 that is pretty amazing chord wise.
jory vinikour

11/19/2006 02:26:00 PM  
Blogger painterdog said...

Bach: Concerto After Vivaldi in D, BWV 972, 2. Larghetto.

I guess Bach had enough respect for Vivaldi to write a concerto on his music.

11/19/2006 02:45:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home