Creators Project Festival October 15-16

Andy Horwitz

In case you haven’t been paying attention, Vice Media and Intel have quietly (or not so quietly) revolutionizing the artistic landscape with their ground-breaking partnership The Creators Project. From their website:

The Creators Project is a global network dedicated to the celebration of creativity, culture and technology. At a time in the history of the arts where digital technology has revolutionized distribution, democratized access, and re-imagined the scope and scale with which an artist can create a vision and reach an audience, The Creators Project is a new kind of arts and culture channel for a new kind of world.

Well now they’re going to have a big-ass festival in Brooklyn on October 15-16 with Karen O’s new opera (directed by Adam Rapp) Stop The Virgens as a centerpiece.

For more information on the festival – which is FREE!!! with RSVP – click here.

This IS the arts funding model of the future, by the way. This partnership is putting new technology in the hands of cutting edge artists and giving them resources to create really cool stuff.

And if you check the artist roster you’ll notice there are no artists for whom theater, dance or performance is their primary medium (that I noticed) – which says WAY more about the state of contemporary performing arts than it does about the CP curatorial process.

Posted

in

by

Andy Horwitz

Tags:

, , , , ,

Comments

8 responses to “Creators Project Festival October 15-16”

  1. Jeremy M. Barker

    "And if you check the artist roster you’ll notice there are no artists for whom theater, dance or performance is their primary medium (that I noticed) – which says WAY more about the state of contemporary performing arts than it does about the CP curatorial process."

    To be fair, Andy, this is actually related to something I mentioned a while back when we were talking about arts funding and artist compensation: technology is expensive, and if emerging (actually emerging, as in "young") artists don't have the resources to explore and begin incorporating these elements into their work early in their careers, the art form will suffer.

    Reply
  2. culturebot

    I don't remember the conversation – how many beers had we had?

    But while I agree with you about the cost of technology I don't think money is the only issue here, by far. I think it has more to do with the way artists think about their work, about their process, about how their work relates to other disciplines and other strands of thought outside the narrow confines of "performing arts".

    I don't know that I'm ready to launch a detailed withering diatribe online and in public and invite the inevitable backlash – you know how I feel about most "plays" and playwrights! – but maybe sometime soon.

    But I'm really getting frustrated by people – artists and critics alike – blaming the funding landscape for a lack of innovation and ingenuity in the performing arts. It is an endless and ongoing complaint, it is not going to change and is hardly the only cause of the anomie enveloping the performance landscape. It is about vision, ambition, professionalism and getting out of our little bubble and engaging with a wider set of ideas and audiences.

    Reply
  3. Jeremy M. Barker

    Er…it wasn't over beers. It was on our website.
    http://www.culturebot.org/2011/04/9965/why-should-we-…

    I agree in general with your response Andy. There's always excuses for why people don't do things. My point, though, and this is the point I was trying to make back when I wrote about why we shouldn't pay artists more (sort of), is that often we don't have honest discussions about funding, what it's for and what it's meant to accomplish. Instead, we throw around buzzwords that mean nothing and everyone plays a game where they creatively lie in grant applications to try to prove their project is worthy of some grant, and yadda yadda yadda.

    What I was taking issue with is the failure to have a more meaningful conversation about funding and what it should accomplish. Particularly in the echo-chamber of the arts blogosphere, there's this ridiculous cheerleading going on whenever anyone makes a point. "Artists should be better compensated!" Yay! "Mid-career/mid-age artists have different needs that should be accounted for!" Yay! "Emerging artists need access to technology for the advancement of the form!" Yay!

    But in the world we live in, these demands conflict because we really are dealing with limited or scarce financial resources. And making an argument for providing opportunities for multi-disciplinary work in performance is important. It's the future. And the performance world cannot define it's own terms of engagement and success. These are things people need to realize and push for some at least partial solution to.

    Reply
  4. Jeremy M. Barker

    Er…it wasn't over beers. It was on our website.
    http://www.culturebot.org/2011/04/9965/why-should-we-…

    I agree in general with your response Andy. There's always excuses for why people don't do things. My point, though, and this is the point I was trying to make back when I wrote about why we shouldn't pay artists more (sort of), is that often we don't have honest discussions about funding, what it's for and what it's meant to accomplish. Instead, we throw around buzzwords that mean nothing and everyone plays a game where they creatively lie in grant applications to try to prove their project is worthy of some grant, and yadda yadda yadda.

    What I was taking issue with is the failure to have a more meaningful conversation about funding and what it should accomplish. Particularly in the echo-chamber of the arts blogosphere, there's this ridiculous cheerleading going on whenever anyone makes a point. "Artists should be better compensated!" Yay! "Mid-career/mid-age artists have different needs that should be accounted for!" Yay! "Emerging artists need access to technology for the advancement of the form!" Yay!

    But in the world we live in, these demands conflict because we really are dealing with limited or scarce financial resources. And making an argument for providing opportunities for multi-disciplinary work in performance is important. It's the future. And the performance world cannot define it's own terms of engagement and success. These are things people need to realize and push for some at least partial solution to.

    Reply
  5. Jeremy M. Barker

    Er…it wasn't over beers. It was on our website.
    http://www.culturebot.org/2011/04/9965/why-should-we-…

    I agree in general with your response Andy. There's always excuses for why people don't do things. My point, though, and this is the point I was trying to make back when I wrote about why we shouldn't pay artists more (sort of), is that often we don't have honest discussions about funding, what it's for and what it's meant to accomplish. Instead, we throw around buzzwords that mean nothing and everyone plays a game where they creatively lie in grant applications to try to prove their project is worthy of some grant, and yadda yadda yadda.

    What I was taking issue with is the failure to have a more meaningful conversation about funding and what it should accomplish. Particularly in the echo-chamber of the arts blogosphere, there's this ridiculous cheerleading going on whenever anyone makes a point. "Artists should be better compensated!" Yay! "Mid-career/mid-age artists have different needs that should be accounted for!" Yay! "Emerging artists need access to technology for the advancement of the form!" Yay!

    But in the world we live in, these demands conflict because we really are dealing with limited or scarce financial resources. And making an argument for providing opportunities for multi-disciplinary work in performance is important. It's the future. And the performance world cannot define it's own terms of engagement and success. These are things people need to realize and push for some at least partial solution to.

    Reply
  6. Jeremy M. Barker

    Also, I hope some nitpicking troll comes along to complain about my "it's" typo again.

    Reply
  7. Santina Montezuma

    I’ve got a low-hanging fruit for DDOT. How about the one block that does not have a lane painted on it on 4th Street NE between M and L? That must’ve just been a repaving and someone forgot to paint the bike lane back.

    Reply
  8. Arnie Bergen

    People will turn new technologies to art. They'll see new ways of expressing themselves. Look at sampling, for instance, and funding will no doubt be crowdsourced to a high degree.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Santina MontezumaCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.