We Have a Dream Petition

[Rian Jackson]

thanks, techno. those are exactly some of the things i was hoping would get looked at. especially when the idea of 'entitlement' keeps coming up, it seems pertinent.

i guess the main point for me, rather than legal ownership of the event - rather than anything you'd see on paper - is how it is conceptualised at different levels. would larry see it differently than badger who might see it differently than someone who doesn't ranger? i don't know.

i think, actually, this is also tied to ideas about participation. if people were feeling some ownership over their city/event, i would have higher expectations for them to volunteer their time to make the whole thing run. other events, like a concert, are clearly not 'owned' by the attendees. the percentage of people who would feel like they *ought* to volunteer/paricipate in that situation is probably damn low.

it's intimately tied into how we spend our energies and to what extent we think we should be able to shape the end result.

with that said, BuMP has a fairly unique model for an event, methinks. but at the end of the day we all return to default world, and it may be pertinent to look at it using default world terms.

[Badger]

Badger's comment tells me he has no clue about the amount of *work* that goes into a (large) grant project, all money aside.

And your comment suggests a level of presumptuousness that you, quite honestly, aren't fucking entitled to.

[stuart]

perhaps one of the reasons this is causing such a stir is that a vast majority of us don't expect, let alone get, a dime from the org for the work that we do for the event. So, when a group of folks bands together, many of whom have received substantial amounts from the org, and makes a demand on a resource that we do without it seems a little off.

I will say that this discussion has softened my position to a degree but I think Rian has it right when she asks that the intial question of ownership must be addressed before this debate can have any real legitimacy.

Also, to beat a familiar horse, I would like to know if either Lush, Sol System or Disorient get any financial aid from the org.

[Isotopia]

Also, to beat a familiar horse, I would like to know if either Lush, Sol System or Disorient get any financial aid from the org.

Can't speak for the org and funding but will say that I know first hand that Lush was actually charging upwards of $100 for people to camp in their designated area because people wanted to be close to the action. We're talking people who were at best marginally associated to the camp.

Another suck example of the ethos of the event being twisted for the better good of a small group of individuals. Lush was totally guilty of it because their ambitions exceeded their ability to fund their idea so they head up to the playa and, with a wink and a nod, did a blatant end run around one of the basic tenets of the event.

Commerce.

[tritical]

Badger's comment tells me he has no clue about the amount of *work* that goes into a (large) grant project, all money aside.

And your comment suggests a level of presumptuousness that you, quite honestly, aren't fucking entitled to.

Now who's being presumptuous ? Sorry if I took it the wrong way, but your wording implies that the petitioners are a bunch of lazy asses whining about not getting their way. I resent the implication, know it not to the case, and wonder what axe you have to grind ?
If you have an opinion on the matter, why not voice it. Or do you prefer just to sit back and toss in random aspersions ?

I quote their synopsis of the petition:
RADICALLY DEMOCRATIZE THE CURATION AND FUNDING OF THE ART.

Yeah, really smacks of entitlement.

[Badger]

but your wording implies that the petitioners are a bunch of lazy asses whining about not getting their way.

No, what I'm suggesting is that the signatories to the petition are, for the most part, collectively marching in lock-step without nary a voice of challenge or dissent to what is arguably a laborious, self-absorbed and ill-defined exercise in stone tossing and arm twisting without so much as a challenge to the fundamental premise of the petition. Namely, that collectively anyone who contributes art to/wards the event is - or should be - entitled to a portion of the demanded 10% levy against gross ticket receipts without so much as a fucking suggestion to any level or degree of accountability in the way it'd be spent.

Sounds like a bunch of shit tossing, sand-box prima donnas that're ready to take their ball home if the rules are altered to suit them.

Sure, if you wanna stir the pot start screaming in unison. If you want to be taken seriouisly then first demand engagement - a place at the table - for dialogue before you go threatening to drop your little pissant warhead.

[thinkcooper]

If you want to be taken seriiously then first demand engagement - a place at the table - for dialogue before you go threatening to drop your little pissant warhead.

There may be more than one way to skin a cat, but the petition sure does seem to be "a" powerful way to head directly towards securing a place at the table.

My negotiation experience, (no expert here, just a reasonably accomplished deal maker) says start high and work your way towards the livable middle. Petition points = high. Middle point is, well where this will all end up.

Dropping a warhead versus saying your working on one are two different things and the results are expectedly different.

[tritical]

No, what I'm suggesting is that the signatories to the petition are, for the most part, collectively marching in lock-step without nary a voice of challenge or dissent to what is arguably a laborious, self-absorbed and ill-defined exercise in stone tossing and arm twisting without so much as a challenge to the fundamental premise of the petition.

Sorry, but there are more than a few comments in there taking them to task for both their premise and audacity. Spend more time reading and less time typing torturously-long invective-filled diatribe that paints you as little more than an ill-tempered cynic bent on pulling down everyone around him.

Namely, that collectively anyone who contributes art towards the event is - or should be - entitled to a portion of the demanded 10% levy against gross ticket receipts without so much as a fucking suggestion to any level or degree of accountability in the way it'd be spent.

If you can explain how you get entitlement out of a curatory process that is open to all comers, I'm all ears.

And accountability ? Really, you're grasping at straws here, expecting us to believe that anyone with the responsibility of a 6-figure budget (the org) would be so naive as to not implement some means of accountability.

Sounds like a bunch of shit tossing, sand-box prima donnas that're ready to take their ball home if the rules aren't altered to suit them.

Nicely crafted, but only reinforces what I said in the first paragraph. You could also read it as "an agitated group with a history of delivering the goods, who care enough about the quality of the event that they're willing to step up and try to effect change (which involves more work on their part, not less) are trying to decide if its time to stop banging their heads against the wall"

Or you could just rail against them for even trying, in the hopes of shooting the idea down before it even gets off the ground.

And I'm to tired at the moment to bother with your last sentence. Thinkcooper handled it nicely and with a levelheadedness that I don't seem able to achieve today.

[playasnake]

Also, to beat a familiar horse, I would like to know if either Lush, Sol System or Disorient get any financial aid from the org.

should they not?

[Kiba]

Anything I could say was better said by badger.

With one exception. This year I'm going to set up an art piece in an unsanctioned area. In the middle of the night. With ninjas. Try and stop me. ^_^

Oh yeah, and I'm not going to expect/ask anyone to fund it but me.

[spectabillis]

I actually think some of the ideas presented are worth discussing, but all of the rather vague "solutions" are stated with such a lack of reason and process that they will be difficult to act on. Saying "you should do this" is useless without the "how"., and there is no "how" in the petition.

I had a few on the how, but a lack of info on the internal workings of the org that makes this difficult to apply.

[Bob]

I voted. Hate to miss a good fight.

I disagree with the petition, but I'm signing on because it would suck if I didn't.

Fresh dialog re: art and artists at the event might be good. I start with the premise that the "We" in "We are the artists" means everyone.

But I do feel your pain, so my own proposal is to fund Granny and Grampy ASS positions (Art Support Services) for applicants w/two previous art grants. Show the young'uns how to siphon gas, hijack a bobcat, borrow lumber, tie up a crane for days, burn up a generator, etc.

[Kiba]

Given all this fixing that seems in demand, (referring to an old adage) what is BROKEN? I mean, what is intolerably "wrong" with BM? I can think of many things I could do without or wouldn't notice missing, but nothing that 'shouldn't' be omitted certainly. Furthermore, it seems to me that art was on the decline before this petition was penned and signed. So now it seems we have a self-proclaimed (though not in name) BM Artist's Union who is threatening to go on strike.

... And the horse you rode in on.

[stuart]

should they not?

I aint sayin one way or the other. But I would be interested to know. I also would be interested to know if the folks originating this petition would deem works like theirs worthy. I think it's an important philisophical test.

So, Tritical, in your perfect world, does, say, Sol System get $14K as well?

[Rob the Wop]

I don't think that the problem lies in the funding the established 'artists'.

I see this petition and comments on this board as symptoms of a greater problem. The increases in grant money coupled with the increase in a 'spectator' mentality is the issue that should be fought. 'Why' you ask?

I read a comment on this board that really depressed me. An attendee posted a comment complaining about the lack of art on the playa. She asked where the hell her ticket money went to- if not to create big art pieces for her to enjoy. This rather than wondering how she could bring cool art out to the playa.

Now we have artists esentially demanding money or they will not create art.

Am I the only one that sees these items as symptoms of a death toll? This 'movement' will simply serve to create a greater divide between attendees and artists. A divide that should not exist at all- since all attendees have the ability to create art and should be urged to do so. We would have a feeling of "I don't need to do anything as the 'Art Curators' have the responsibility to create all the art on the playa'". This in turn would lead to a feeling of 'Where the hell is the art I paid for'- and simply get steadily worse from there.

Cut the funding for art altoghether and lower the ticket prices. I have a far more Cacophonous view of bringing art to the playa. If you aren't a flake, and your idea has enough merit, people will come out of the woodwork to supply materials, equipment, and manpower. So what if you don't have the expensive rhinestones and have to substitute broken pottery bits- you don't truely need cash if you have the former three items. And if you are a flake, or your idea sucks, then you shouldn't deserve to get cash from BMORG anyway.

Rather than put artists on a pedestal and get them paid gigs, drive home the idea that everyone needs to bring something artistic to share and make it easier from them to get out to the playa (ie. ticket prices). Many personal, semi-big installations would be far better than one big professionally done one.

My 2cents.

[thinkcooper]

Given all this fixing that seems in demand, (referring to an old adage) what is BROKEN??

There's only a few things the petitioners are pointing out as broken-

The problem:
Big signature art pieces that have helped make Burning Man what it is are disappearing.

The hypothetical roots of the problem:
1. How the current grants are being awarded.
2. Confining grants to fit an artificial theme and criteria.
3. Restricting playa placement to support the theme

The proposed solution:
Open up the grant process to additional voices

I mean, what is intolerably "wrong" with BM?

I don't know what's intolerably wrong with Burning Man. For me personally, I have issues with BM, I'd like to bring my guns and shoot for instance before getting on the playa. But I accept that I can't do that. It's not an intolerable situation.

But I think you're comment is really getting to the point of "it's not intolerable, so what's the big issue?"

Personally (again - sheesh), I don't wait until a situation is intolerable before I do something about it. I take good care of myself, excercise and eat well. I mow my lawn before the grass is knee deep. I keep my car in tune, rather than waiting for it to break down. I pay my bills before the collection agency has to call. A thinkCooper life principle: I don't believe that we should ever wait for the intolerable to occur before we take measures that can prevent the intolerable from happening.

I can think of many things I could do without or wouldn't notice missing, but nothing that 'shouldn't' be omitted certainly. Furthermore, it seems to me that art was on the decline before this petition was penned and signed.

Ah Kiba, hopefully there will be a list of funded playa art posted sometime so you can really understand how much of the spectacular BM art experience is provided by artists that are granted. Without the grants it simply wouldn't have been there. Maybe I'll pull a bunch of cool past BM gallery images out and black out the grant art. I think that would be striking to see.

As for doing without the grant art on the playa? You're right. It's not needed. I didn't need the temple. I didn't need the chandelier. I didn't need Pepe's Opera or Helco. I didn't need Dan Das Mann's giant three faces. I didn't need the sculpture guy made of books. I didn't need the last of the big Illumination Village flamethrowers spitting up 50 gallons of kerosene with every trigger pull. No, I didn't need any of those. I sure am glad I got to see 'em though. Selfishly, I'd like to see more art like that in the future.

So now it seems we have a self-proclaimed (though not in name) BM Artist's Union who is threatening to go on strike.

So it is in the world. A group of like minded people put their voices together to be heard. It's worked for us all in the past. As a culture, we got the 5 day work week out of it.

... And the horse you rode in on.

Kiba, Kiba, Kiba... this issue must make you really mad. The part of that old axe you omitted is pretty angry. I believe it's "fuck you and the horse you rode in on." Maybe I can keep feeding you some of my perceptions about this issue that'll help you have a better understanding, maybe I can persuade you to be less angry about what is happening. Who knows...

Personally (third time's a charm?), I have no stake in this issue. I'm not an artist that'll ever be funded. I'm not associated with any of the petition writers in any manner except as friends. I'm just a lowly Burner that loves seeing overwhelmingly large, impossible, and significant outsider art that makes me say "holy fucking shit" I'd like that to happen again. And I believe that these united voices can move towards that goal.

Cheers!

[technopatra]

Techo'P, I'd asked in an earlier post that was deleted during the crash if you had access to a list of the projects that have been funded on the Playa over the years. The list would be quite impressive to read and would include some of the most memorable pieces of art I've ever seen. I think it would be very good for the community to see what impact grants have had on the playa art, and also see that many of the people in the petition list were responsible for these pieces and that this petition is a stropngly worded dialog opener to hoepfully escort in a more open decision making process ito provide art for our community.

.

Hmm good question. I'll see what I can dig up in terms of a list.

On a side note, we have been discussing how we can make info like this more easily accessible on the website, so if anyone wants to join that discussion with the team, some to a web team meeting. Email me and I'll send you the deets.

OK I talked to LadyBee about this and she said she'd send me a list soon. She'll have to compile it from various sources, so it'll take a wee bit of time. She did say that there were about 30 funded artists this year.

[thinkcooper]

Techo'P, I'd asked in an earlier post that was deleted during the crash if you had access to a list of the projects that have been funded on the Playa over the years. The list would be quite impressive to read and would include some of the most memorable pieces of art I've ever seen. I think it would be very good for the community to see what impact grants have had on the playa art, and also see that many of the people in the petition list were responsible for these pieces and that this petition is a stropngly worded dialog opener to hoepfully escort in a more open decision making process ito provide art for our community.

.

Hmm good question. I'll see what I can dig up in terms of a list.

On a side note, we have been discussing how we can make info like this more easily accessible on the website, so if anyone wants to join that discussion with the team, some to a web team meeting. Email me and I'll send you the deets.

OK I talked to LadyBee about this and she said she'd send me a list soon. She'll have to compile it from various sources, so it'll take a wee bit of time. She did say that there were about 30 funded artists this year.

Pretty damn impressive! Thanks!

[thinkcooper]

My apologies for starting a thread on the same topic a couple of hours later than this one. The thread seems to be where most of the discussion has been going down - just wanted to post those apologies and a link to that other thread...

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=7610

[technopatra]

Now we have artists esentially demanding money or they will not create art.

Am I the only one that sees these items as symptoms of a death toll? This 'movement' will simply serve to create a greater divide between attendees and artists. A divide that should not exist at all- since all attendees have the ability to create art and should be urged to do so. We would have a feeling of "I don't need to do anything as the 'Art Curators' have the responsibility to create all the art on the playa'". This in turn would lead to a feeling of 'Where the hell is the art I paid for'- and simply get steadily worse from there.

Cut the funding for art altoghether and lower the ticket prices. I have a far more Cacophonous view of bringing art to the playa. If you aren't a flake, and your idea has enough merit, people will come out of the woodwork to supply materials, equipment, and manpower. So what if you don't have the expensive rhinestones and have to substitute broken pottery bits- you don't truely need cash if you have the former three items. And if you are a flake, or your idea sucks, then you shouldn't deserve to get cash from BMORG anyway.

Rather than put artists on a pedestal and get them paid gigs, drive home the idea that everyone needs to bring something artistic to share and make it easier from them to get out to the playa (ie. ticket prices). Many personal, semi-big installations would be far better than one big professionally done one.

My 2cents.

No, you are not alone. I love the big pieces but I always interact more with the smaller ones. One of my favorite pieces from 2003 was a relatively small kinetic piece with very mousetrap/Rube Goldberg feel that described, wittily and insightfully, the stages of life we all go through. You as the participant get the first piece in motion, and then there is a series of levers switching and shoes dropping etc. It was engaging and fun, it made me feel connected to my community by showing me some commonality of experience, and while not inherently beautiful to look at, my experience with it was joyful.

My personal experience with the event is that costumes, themecamps, performances and freestanding art pieces are all methods of artistic expression, and all should get the respect they deserve. I fully spport the view that the event is an opportunity for everyone - not just established or full-time artists - to tap into their inherent creativity to realize something meaningful to them through the process of sharing it with others. Another issue I have with the petition is that it does not address these other aspects of art.

[technopatra]

FYI - I merged the "we curate the art" thread with this one, as is it the same topic and that thread had only 3 responses in it.

Carry on.

[thinkcooper]

FYI - I merged the "we curate the art" thread with this one, as is it the same topic and that thread had only 3 responses in it.

Carry on.

Cool! Good idea.

[jimmason]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Burnside [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:37 AM
> To: Jim Mason
> Subject: Re: [Shipyard Announce]: What to do about Burning Man . . . ?
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> When I read your statement, I thought you might have had a bad
> experience with your own art proposal so I asked Lady Bee about it and
> here's her reply.... (now pasted below at the end of this response).
>


Thank you for writing bob. And yes, I have already seen ladybee's reply.
It has been making the rounds and many responses to it have also been making the rounds. All have been interesting.

I was disappointed by the intellectual dishonesty in how ladybee represented the points in our "We Have a Dream" proposal as well as the continuing refusal to notice the large sea of people massing here saying essentially "We are excited to make the art great again. Will you work with us to do that?". How can she say no to that? Instead, the note shoots the messenger, while ignoring the content, and picks at details (often misrepresented) without engaging the larger issues and ideas. Most discouragingly, it does not show any appreciable leadership towards solutions, only more resistance.

As usual, we were again given a rosy representation of the state of art at burning man. Ladybee suggests a couple tweaks here and there and all will be fine, showing once again that her head must be buried deep in playa dust. "Her" own artists are coming out in droves against this blatant refusal to speak and deal with the truth. All we have done here is finally create a frame and forum where people could really speak the truth of what is happening, and not have it dissipate into thin air.

I have been doing this for 10 years bob. You can see most of what I've done out there at www.whatiamupto.com. I love burning man like I love few other things in the world and want to continue doing so. But the current deep malignancy of dissatisfaction amongst the artists is not sustainable and is destroying the event. And efforts by artist after artist to talk about the problems and ask for real change have gone nowhere, despite years of effort.

Unfortunately bob, we have learned that it is impossible to change the borg though discussion. We have tried that for years. The Borg is capable of ingesting METRIC TONS of discussion in the service of not really changing anything. We specifically DID NOT propose this as a discussion because we have had so many discussions over the years that went nowhere. Lots of smiled affirmations of "we get it" and "yes, I agree we should move in that direction", then nothing. The discussion has only been used as a pressure relief for the boiling frustrations in the community, but not to really explore ways to change things and then enact them.

So after years of trying to make the dissatisfaction go away the discussion way, we have been forced to do it the ugly way. And that way is by pinning the Borg with their own principles, policies, vocabulary and a heaping mound of the artists who give their gifts to the event regularly. Expose the hypocrisy and resistance to change that has so many artists and general participants so frustrated and many streaming out the door. We had to issue an ultimatum. There was no other way. And we had to accept looking like complete jerks to do it.

Now we are trying to turn the corner and make this more of a discussion, not so much a list of demands. But the core principles and gist of the proposal people are clearly saying yes to in droves. The voting is really already largely done. We are now in the endgame of figuring out how we are going to implement most of this. The borg cannot ignore that so many people have so clearly said they want radical change, real democracy, and real truth speaking and maintain any semblance of ability to argue they respond to the community. They don't. Everyone knows that. And the Borg knows they are expert at diffusing all frustration and critique through faux discussion, so they continue doing it.

So we have given them a choice. Put real participation and decision making power back in the hands of the participants or we are leaving. And we are going to organize as many people as we can to either fix it spectacularly, or leave it spectacularly. We are saying that the borg's representation of the current state of affairs is a lie. Are you reading the petition? People are calling the Borg liars. That the beautiful vision we read about in all the literature is not, in fact, happening for many people. It is for some, but it is not for a very large body of people, and particularly not for many of the artists.

It is silly to suggest that we would start all this strum und drang just because I didn't get a grant last year (even though ladybee's representation of the proposed project leaves out a good deal of what was actually proposed and further elaborated through discussion). In fact, if the burning man organization agrees to listen to its people and act on the core ideas of this proposal, after a much needed IMPLEMENTATION discussion with the general community, I will agree to build a huge conflagration of chaos and art in the desert this year, and not ask for a dime to do it. I am not after anything here other than fixing what is broken. I am only trying to suggest we give things away in the honest manner that they should be given away. Or rather, I should say WE are only trying to better distribute power, curating and funding decisions amongst ALL those who contribute value to the event, Borg included. And we ALL know the Borg has contributed hugely and skillfully to the creation and maintenance of this event. But ownership of Burning Man is radically distributed.

In the end, I don't know how any close and honest reader of our proposal could see it as anything other than a passionate plea to make something we all love, fabulous and wonderful again. The unending storm of affirming comments to the petition only proves this desire and the community's agreement with the gist of the proposal.

How many thousands of people is it going to take saying as much on this petition before they believe it? If they think this is just the local malcontents, they should put the proposal out on the JRS and see what the "other" people think? There are no "other" people. They will get the same response- only magnified by a factor of 10 or so, as there is at least 10x the audience on the JRS as we have likely reached so far (but it is growing fast, so who knows. . .). And for the record, the original plan was to start this by hacking the JRS list and sending the proposal out to the full 40,000 or so of us. But we decided that was unfair and would wrongly expose our little family tiff to too many Nevada/BLM politicos and others that shouldn't be audience to this. So we started it on our local lists. But now it is everywhere and nearly everyone is saying basically the same thing. The signers are not "the other ones". They are from most every nook and cranny of the Burning Man community.

What are they saying? They are saying that they love this event and they feel it is going in a bad direction. They are not asking for the old event.
That is a cop-out reading that many are suggesting. People want a good and changing event. They want it to be different and surprising each year.
They don't want it to be stale. It is stale currently. We have proposed solutions for ensuring it does not replicate staleness. Most of these solutions are based on putting the art curation in the hands of the participants in some manner, centrally incorporating guest curators to ensure a constant stream of fresh ideas, and lessening the scripting around what the artists are asked to do.

The details of doing this will be worked out later. We only wrote enough detail to show plausibility. We only opened the space for imagination and further elaboration. Any more detail would have made an already ridiculously long proposal even more ridiculously long. More discussion and refining will be needed to figure out how to specifically enact these ideas and the additional good ones that are already surfacing (like the "post event grants" to notable and ambitious art that just showed up).

But the community clearly wants the core of the proposed ideas. That is the vote. Can you hear it? It is like a 90% positive vote or something.
Hello? Is anyone listening out there? Is anyone in the borg really reading the proposal honestly and in detail and then reading the comments with an open mind?

We did this because we love this event and community like no other we have ever been involved with. Really, you might consider this whole thing an act of love. It is a gift to the Burning Man organization and the community in general. The intent was to encourage people to get reexcited and recommitted to applying themselves to the event again with vigor, if the Borg will let us do it. And that is now what people are saying they want to do, in droves. They want to make it work. They want to try again. They want to make it great. You can read this everywhere in the petition comments.

In the end, it is really quite easy for the Borg. The Borg just has to say yes. Say yes and they win. Say yes and they get all this renewed enthusiasm and desire to make things great. They can then say all these things were their ideas all along and they had been planning on making these changes anyway. Call us assholes and terrible human beings and we hurt everyone's feelings without need. That is fine. But accept the gift.
Allow the people to make the event great again, in ways that we don't even know now, with people we can't even imagine now. That is what everyone is telling the Borg they want to do. The Borg should listen to them. They will only win if they do- and the larger community will win as well.

Thank you for writing (and reading).


Jim Mason
The Shipyard


PS- you are welcome to fwd this back to the theme art list or wherever ladybee's comments were posted.


petition at:
http://www.odeonbar.com/petition/1/petition.php?page=1


> Hi Bob-
>
> Here's the backstory, as well as what I think about the petition. You
> are free to forward this far and wide. - LadyBee
>
>
> Thanks for asking. Indeed, he applied and didn't get a grant last year
> for his Big Bang project - essentially twenty minutes of the fire
> cannons culminating in a fuel-air bomb explosion that would have been
> life-threatening unless it was perfectly orchestrated. We all know the
> margin of error on playa is considerable! in addition, he wanted FORTY
> THOUSAND DOLLARS for this 20- minute entertainment. Undoubtedly cool,
> it was too dangerous and too expensive to fund.
>
> What do I think of the petition? It contains some good ideas, notably
> increasing the art budget, which we'd already planned for next year,
> and giving grants to non-theme art, which we already do - we "stretch"
> the idea to fit the theme if the project is really good. Yes, everyone
> knows that and wonders why various funded projects don't seem to be
> based on the theme....that's why. This year we will be clearer about
> this and devote a percentage of the grant funds to non-theme art. We
> prefer interactivity but in fact we also fund art that lacks
> interactivity - think of Michael Christian's Flock in 2001.
>
> What I find disturbing about the petition is that a small group of
> local artists seem to feel that they "created" the event, made it
> great, and are now entitled to curate and manage the grant program -
> as well as having access to 10% of our ticket sales income. Have they
> not noticed that we now have artists from all over the country as well
> as Europe making art at the event? They seem to think they are the
> soul and center of the art commmunity....but there are dozens of art
> communities who contribute to our event. We love our local artists,
> but we also love new participants and we welcome artists new to Burning Man.
>
> Looking at the responses to the petition, I'm appalled at the errors
> and downright ignorance about our art process. This tells me that
> people do not read the art information on our website, and probably
> don't look at the gate handouts either. If they did, they'd know that we do not "bar"
> non-theme art, we don't "banish" playa art to the deep playa, we don't
> prevent people from bringing their art unless it's dangerous, and we
> don't "decide" what art makes it out there. All art is welcome at our
> event, whether registered on the website or not. This year we had
> about 50 "walk-in" projects that just showed up; we ask them to check
> in at the Artery and they get placed and assisted. Artists can place
> their art where they like; we only map it if they don't have a
> preference. I also noticed that several folks said they were going to
> bring art, but we made them "jump through too many hoops", so they
> didn't bother. Oh, please..... we ask for basic safety; hundreds of
> people comply every year and don't seem to give up so easily. What are
> these hoops? We require that each piece be lit at night, so people
> don't drive or bike into it and get hurt. We ask for a clean-up plan,
> so folks don't leave big messes for us to clean up. If the art has
> propane and fire, we ask to see their plan for storing their tanks and
> a diagram of the gas lines. If a structure is big and people will be
> climbing or entering it, we make sure that it's engineered properly.
> If it's going to burn, we need to see the burn platform so the playa
> isn't damaged. If you think this is too much, try creating a piece of
> public art in any American city and you'll see how much bigger the
> hoops can get! And then try burning it!!!!
>
> Here's my big question to the petition folks: if so many of your
> supporters haven't bothered to educate themselves about our process by
> reading our site, do you expect them, and the rest of the community,
> to read through hundreds of multi-page art proposals so they can make
> informed choices when they vote? I'd guess that a popular vote will be
> a popularity contest - people will vote for their friends.
>
> You will note that in the petition site, if you respond at all, you
> have voted for the petition. Very Diebold! They don't provide any
> forum for discussion, which is the most valuable thing the petition has created.
> There are two very interesting dialogues going on about it, on the
> EPlaya: http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=7610 or
> http://eplaya.burningman.org/ - Black Rock City - Nature of Burning
> Man
> - we have a dream petition - and on Tribe.net in the Burning Man tribe
> - Take Back Burning Man thread. You have to be registered on Tribe to
> access that - just create a username and password as usual. Both of
> these dialogues are interesting and thoughtful, and seem to be founded
> on actual knowledge (! ) instead of assumptions, hearsay, and bitterness.
>
> This is a time of challenge for Burning Man, with so many new
> participants. How do we engage them? How do we keep the art lively,
> interesting, and cutting edge? We welcome feedback, fresh ideas, and
> criticism of our art process. Demands, however, are not so appealing,
> especially when based on entitlement, hostility and self-importance.
>
>

[technopatra]

FYI - I merged Jim's thread with this one, to avoid crossposting.

[Bob]

Welcome to the eplaya, Jim. Hope you were expecting a discussion here.

Mind giving us an example of a funded artist's actual budget & schedule with a full breakdown so we have a better understanding of the whole thing?

[tritical]

should they not?

I aint sayin one way or the other. But I would be interested to know. I also would be interested to know if the folks originating this petition would deem works like theirs worthy. I think it's an important philisophical test.

So, Tritical, in your perfect world, does, say, Sol System get $14K as well?

Well, now, I guess that'd be up to the curators, wouldn't it ? As suggested in the petition. Which I'm getting tired of repeating.

[Isotopia]

Which I'm getting tired of repeating.

Then by all means stop repeating it.

[Bob A]

Ok I've got a few thoughts on this topic. This all seems one sided in the direction of big funded art vs. small and theme art vs. non-theme art. And there is the implication that this group and petition speak for the majority.

The petition has somewhere between 500- 600 right now when you take away dups. etc. This year’s event had somewhere around 35,000 people give or take. That is only 1.7 percent of the population. Also I think electronic forums lean to the negative a lot as people have occasionally mentioned on the eplaya. So does this represent the whole? Also their board has no place to register for opposing viewpoint. Is everybody reading it and agreeing or are a lot of people disagreeing and leaving the petition page. It would be nice to know this. Many people would not bother to come find a discussion area to voice the opposite view, as I will here.

These are the points I have issues with.

1. Raise funding to 10%.
All over this board people complain that ticket prices are too high, I don’t' feel they are, but this has been expressed in many topics. To give 10% to art, where do you think the money will come from? The org is not rich, contrary to some myths, That increase would be tacked right onto the ticket price upsetting the "tickets cost to much group", "Why are they spending more of my money to fund art. I built and paid for mine by myself"

2. We need more large funded art.

Also on other discussions on this board, some people have stated a preference for smaller art vs. the giant pieces. I loved the temple but some of my favorites where small ones like the solar powered mobile, The seven ages of Spam from last year, and many others. Some people like big some like small. Funding would most likely lean towards large art not small, making some people feel like why bother doing my small art its all big and funded.

I saw lots of art out there and according to technopatra's post only 30 were funded. I saw a lot more than 30 projects. And does that include mutant vehicles, I don't think they get any funding, but I don't know, someone else can chime in on that. I saw many mutant vehicles that had lots of money put into them and were very impressive art.

So if all these other people self-fund, fund raise, and dip into savings why should more art be funded?

3. Non theme art should be funded not just theme art.

Well this is a preference of the org. But as ladybee said they have stretched that and plan on stretching that further in the future. And again there have been discussions on eplaya about theme vs. non-theme art some people like it for inspiration and some hate it. I find both good.


So in conclusion I don’t see a major flaw in the system. Some art is currently funded, and more will be in the future, it sounds like, Theme and not theme. And as far as turning art-funding choices over to the masses, I think that is a bad idea. The 35,000 people that come to BRC will not vote in any medium in mass, be it Internet or paper, etc. So a vocal few will make the choices, how is that different than Larry, ladybee and a few volunteers that do it now?

We need to know if these people truly speak for the majority, I don’t know of any easy way to accomplish that, maybe next year’s census. Letters to every person that came with a simple questionnaire?

Maybe a few people could be added to the review board for funded projects, but I sure don’t want the masses running the whole thing. Larry and the LLC. Have the project with its head above water now but this kind of large-scale change could be just the thing to drown them and us.

As far as these artists, keep sending in your proposals for funding. Some will be picked some won’t. IF you really like the project and don’t get funded scale back fund raise etc. I would chip in if someone needed money for a project and I thought it was cool. Maybe an area can be set up on the website that people could post their project ideas and what they need, money supplies, manpower etc. I know it smacks of commerce, but this whole discussion does. I think burners would adopt their favorite projects and help out. Those whose didn’t like a project would not help fund it. This would be better than making everybody pay more for their tickets when some can not afford it. It also makes it more community driven.

If these artists are so tired of things, it sounds like they are burned out and maybe they should take a few years off to recharge, instead of threatening to strike. There are plenty of new people in the wings waiting to come up.

Bob A

[brotherjohn]

Many of us are reading subtext in the petition and in the posts made to this board. I also see subtext and I'm not sure if I'm seeing an outlet for prejudice and issues I already have, or useful insight.



In the interests of disclosure I want to say that I was part of a grant application last year, which was approved and then later turned down. The reason for the ultimate rejection was a good one and I was satisfied with it. The process, on the other hand, was not especially clear nor was it transparent. The criteria used to pick our proposal and the other winners was unstated; we didn't know how much we could reasonably request in financial assistance; we weren't clear how closely the project had to tie to the theme in order to receive funding; the communication throughout the process was inconsistent.

So what, right? Isn't the money and the art selection up to the LLC, which has put their blood, sweat and tears into building this thing?

What I see is a conflict between Larry's stated goal of creating / involving community and the process used to fund / select sponsored art. Perhaps Larry has been too successful in articulating his passionate and powerful message of building a temporary community. Because I see many people who embrace this message, and want the same sort of input, representation and accountability that they want in any city government. Burning Man is described to the media as "the largest public art event in the world" and "an experiment in temporary community". So is it any surprise that some portion of the citizenry is voting for more of "their" money to go to art, and more input on how the funds are used?

In my mind, this has little (if anything) to do with art. This has to do with managing the growth of our city. Some of the citizens believe we should invest more money in art (just like citizens in the real world may request more money for public parks). And these citizens also believe that the city government has not done a satisfying job of managing the funds dedicated to art in the past, so they have requested more input, transparency and accountability in the management of the funds.

In short, Larry got what he wanted and what we wanted--a city with many caring citizens who want to be involved with its goverence. That's why this petition and the frustration behind it must be taken seriously.

I have seen this issue growing rapidly in many parts of the Project over the past few years. Many people who were very passionate about the event are feeling burned out because they feel like their voices don't count. I don't envy the LLC, trying to balance growth and management requirements (not to mention a sense of ownership that results from all of their personal hard work) against the growing frustration of those who feel the event belongs to the community. But one thing seems certain to me: the LLC and the attendees can't have it both ways. Either this is a community and petitions / dissent / input are taken seriously...or it's an event, and we shouldn't expect to have a say in it.

Since the second approach may destroy the fabric of respect, LNT and volunteering that we love so much, I sure as hell hope "an event" isn't the answer.

And that's my long-winded way of saying that Jim and his petition matter very, very much in the health of Burning Man, BRC and our community.

[spectabillis]

Techo'P, I'd asked in an earlier post that was deleted during the crash if you had access to a list of the projects that have been funded on the Playa over the years. The list would be quite impressive to read and would include some of the most memorable pieces of art I've ever seen. I think it would be very good for the community to see what impact grants have had on the playa art, and also see that many of the people in the petition list were responsible for these pieces and that this petition is a stropngly worded dialog opener to hoepfully escort in a more open decision making process ito provide art for our community.

.

Hmm good question. I'll see what I can dig up in terms of a list.

On a side note, we have been discussing how we can make info like this more easily accessible on the website, so if anyone wants to join that discussion with the team, some to a web team meeting. Email me and I'll send you the deets.

OK I talked to LadyBee about this and she said she'd send me a list soon. She'll have to compile it from various sources, so it'll take a wee bit of time. She did say that there were about 30 funded artists this year.

What I liked about this idea, was the ability to cross reference with ticket prices and attendence numbers. Gives you an idea of the overall percentage applied to funding art.

Why? I think I will reply to another post to explain both.