Arts in Boston, and attitudes about Artsyness (Lowell, Cambridge: appointed, fit in)

[uncalifornian girl]

Just read this article in the Phoenix:

Gone Begging

Hmmm. As an artist, I guess I should be outraged, or less in love with the idea of moving to Boston. But I'm not. This actually makes me like Boston more. I have always had a problem with artists who feel that working "a real job" is beneath them. I have suffered in a corporate cubicle for years, and so should you! Do your art in your free time, and don't expect a hand out from us taxpayers. LOL. Sadly, I am so busy working I almost never do my art anymore, but that's beside the point.

This all relates to something I have been wondering: How "conservative" is Boston? I don't mean conservative in a political sense. I mean conservative in terms of the arts--it seems that art that stays on the side of well-established museums and academia would be favored, whereas "street graffiti art" or anything borderline obscene might be frowned upon. I have mixed feelings about this too. When I was younger I exhibited more, and a lot of my work was obscene, to the point where I was threatened with eviction from my gallery space. But now I am in a different mental place, and even if I were to return to my dirty paintings, I wouldn't necessarily feel compelled to force them down the public's throat. It would be a private thing. As it should be, I now feel. Boston seems classy and grown up, and I like that. Especially compared to LA.

And yet, when I mention the idea of my moving here to people who have known me in my wild artist days, they all react with : "WHAT?! Boston doesn't fit you at all!" They say it's too conservative. They even say I would raise eyebrows just by walking around, dressing the way I sometimes do. Really? Do Boston ladies all wear 1950's sweater twinsets and strings of pearls or what?

[miu]

Originally Posted by uncalifornian girl

They even say I would raise eyebrows just by walking around, dressing the way I sometimes do. Really? Do Boston ladies all wear 1950's sweater twinsets and strings of pearls or what?

How wild do you sometimes dress?

Boston is a college town. Every time I work on the campuses, I see plenty of outrageous outfits and odd coloured hair. I see a lot of tats and piercings too. So frequent the areas the students do, and you'll fit right in. JP is probably the most artsy in attitude. Parts of Cambridge and Somerville too. But you might stick out in the Financial District. I don't think that anyone in Boston would really care how you dressed, we tend to do our own thing anyway to the point where we've had other threads claiming that Bostonians have no style and dress rather frumpy. So dress the way you want.

But would you be disappointed if you didn't raise any eyebrows though? It seems like you might if you were to one day dress in an extra extreme way. And to that I'd say that no one is impressed by a poseur. So if you do dress extra wild, you might just get ignored as you walk along the sidewalk.

And no, sweater twinsets and strings of pearls are not a Boston woman's style. At least from what I've observed.

I think that Boston's real estate is too expensive to encourage a big artists scene. People do love to go to the ICA on the waterfront. But places that are more favorable for artists to live and make art in would be Northampton and Providence. And Portland, ME.

[uncalifornian girl]

No, I would not be disappointed if I didn't raise eyebrows. I don't consider myself to be very wild looking, even on my wildest days. And anyway I am middle aged now, my stupid friends will just never let me live down some of the things I did in my twenties. So no, I don't want to live in the college kid areas. I'm not a poseur, I'm leaving LA to try to avoid all that.

I guess this article just pissed me off, the way it makes museums, academia, and "little old white ladies" seem like bad things, or somehow against "real art" whatever that means. I am sick of the attitude (especially here on the west coast) that you aren't a real artist unless you are a young, self-taught, and starving. Most of these so-called contemporary artists could benefit from getting a degree or setting foot in a museum once in a while. They have no context, are completely ignorant of what has gone before. To me, that's irrelevant, more so than being "too white" or "not diverse".

I guess it does bother me a little that people who know me well would say I wouldn't fit in in Boston. But I keep in mind most of them have never been there, much less lived there. And they don't really know me as well as they think they do.

[dravogadro]

I don't want to derail your thread, but have you thought about moving to Minneapolis? I know it is a smaller city (and definitely not like Chicago) but it seems like it might be a good fit. I'm not in the arts scene but I haven't gotten that scencester vibe and there are tons of small galleries, workshop spaces and events that are throughout the year. Much lower cost of living, plenty of 20-40 year olds and what seems to me to be a high concentration of advertisting/design firms.

[BVitamin]

I would agree with your friends, Boston, in terms of art is traditional-leaning and I don't blame them for choosing so. There are a lot of cities that push for 'Contemporary Art' (I hate using that term in-line with Post-Modern Art), if indeed Contemporary art is talked about as a progression from Post-Modernism. The article is well written and I can see that they've done their research quite extensively.

Have you been to Boston? Why Boston exactly? Just thinking it 'seems' more sophisticated than L.A. is hardly a substantial reason to move across the country for.

Los Angeles, despite it being hell for you, seems more fitting for your creative endeavors. San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, and NYC all have a strong Contemporary scene and some of them are cheaper places to live than Boston. I don't believe L.A. is the problem here ... just a thought.

[miu]

From reading some of her posts, I'm surprised that the OP wouldn't give Chicago another try...

[Niandra]

The arts scene in Boston honestly seems kind of more artsy-craftsy and watercolor paintings of lighthouses than edgy or whatever. Plenty of people I know also work (and work hard) while making their art. It is expensive to live here, though. I would say that more people tend to be educated -- but I don't necessarily feel that art school education is always a good thing.

I really agree with the article's author, especially this point:

Despite a small network of dynamic spaces like Aviary and UForge in Jamaica Plain, or BSA Space, Boston continues to have a reputation for overvaluing, well-funding, and elevating established institutions — like the symphony, the MFA, ICA, or the Gardner Museum — and more traditional artistic genres, such as fine art derived from European traditions, while undervaluing more contemporary, or "non-traditional" ones, like street-art-inspired work, experimental performance, multimedia, or traditionally non-Western art forms.

Read more: http://thephoenix.com/boston/life/14...#ixzz23BbVxZ2f

Minneapolis is an interesting suggestion!

[lrfox]

"Edgy" is not how I'd describe Boston's art scene. Not nearly on the level of places like SF or LA. Boston is a big city so there is a presence (the ICA is great and there are some galleries that specialize in non-traditional art). Still, I'd describe Boston as "staid" with some edgy pockets. I think you'll find that some of the communities outside of Boston are less "conservative." Providence is far edgier than Boston from an artistic perspective. Northampton has an almost bohemian vibe. Some of the older industrial cities outside of Boston have embraced pretty creative arts scenes. Lowell and New Bedford stand out to me the most. Further outside of the city, Newport RI, Portland Maine and Burlington Vermont have notable creative communities.

[uncalifornian girl]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Providence is far edgier than Boston from an artistic perspective. Northampton has an almost bohemian vibe. Some of the older industrial cities outside of Boston have embraced pretty creative arts scenes. Lowell and New Bedford stand out to me the most. Further outside of the city, Newport RI, Portland Maine and Burlington Vermont have notable creative communities.

Thanks this is helpful. I was wondering about other areas in New England.

[uncalifornian girl]

Originally Posted by BVitamin

Have you been to Boston? Why Boston exactly? Just thinking it 'seems' more sophisticated than L.A. is hardly a substantial reason to move across the country for.

Los Angeles, despite it being hell for you, seems more fitting for your creative endeavors. San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, and NYC all have a strong Contemporary scene and some of them are cheaper places to live than Boston. I don't believe L.A. is the problem here ... just a thought.

I have only been there once (I think) a million years ago on some grade school cross country field trip, Don't remember much. It's a bit of a random choice, and yes I do need to actually travel there first. But here are my major dislikes about LA:

1. the weather (believe it or not) It's waaay too hot here. And I like seasons.
2. living in my car (not much of an exaggeration the way traffic is here)
3. it's ugly/no history of any significance
4. the men/dating (i could fill pages with this, so don't even get me started)
5. crude, vapid people (they're everywhere!)

Yes, I keep coming back here for my design work, the jobs for that are here or in New York. But I am really burned out and wouldn't mind a slight switch of career. Something more academic, perhaps. Boston seems to be the place for that.

In terms of my personal art, the vibe here sucks the life out of me. I have never been so uninspired. I feel excited just looking at pics of the New England area (probably the closest America gets to "European" --which I love and need.)

I don't know, people have of course suggested New York. But I think it's way too big, dirty, and cutthroat. And too much like LA, in a same-but-different kind of way.