Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's a deal - you stop putting words in my mouth (since I didn't type a single word you claim I did in your post), and I ignore you entirely because you offer little of interest?
I'm not really familiar with Cleveland/Cincinnatti/Columbus, so I can't really comment on which has the best art scene (even though it's a bit off topic). I will say though, that in the past, I've heard the most about Columbus' art scene. But that is besides the point.
You can't claim that Cleveland obviously has the best arts scene because it has highly ranked institutions, because every large city has very similar cultural institutions. I'm sure I can see a Renaissance painting in any large city, or hear an orchestra, or anything else that is considered culture. A great art museum does not equal a thriving art scene, though. Artists don't move to cities for their art museum, they move to cities where other artists are living and making work and to be a part of a community of other creative people. Cultural movements often stem from a notable location in which new ideas are coming from. Obviously, great art can come from anywhere, but how can you honestly think that it's merely a coincidence that so many great artists and musicians live in places like Brooklyn today? I think that it's crazy to think that someone is more cultured because they go to a museum that is ranked higher than the museum that someone else in a different city might go to.
It's ridiculous how fast you all are dismissing CowsAndBeer's posts just because he doesn't favor Cleveland/Cincinnatti. There's far more to culture than going to a museum to see what's already been done by an established artist.
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,315,809 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf
Andrew, now I KNOW you're crazy.
Not at all. I simply get CowsAndBeer's point, even though it seems to be going right over other posters' heads.
A top symphony orchestra, a top art museum, opera, etc... Those are nice things to have, but a city's level of "culture" is judged by a lot more than that. A city can't merely regurgitate music, plays, and works of art that were created and produced by other people in other places and times and consider itself fully "cultured" no matter how fine those regurgitated works of art may be. Also important is what a city and its people produce themselves that contribute to the total culture of the larger society.
In a thread awhile back on the Cleveland forum, people were crowing about some article they read where the author ranked Cleveland right up there with Vienna in terms of "classical music".
Well, no, not quite. Many of the old classical music composers were from Vienna and/or produced their works there. In other words, Vienna contributed classical works whereas Cleveland only rehashed them. Two entirely different things.
Truly sophisticated and culturally aware and well-rounded people understand this distinction. Clevelanders crow on and on about "our world-class orchestra, our top art museum, blah blah blah", but it fails to put butts in the seats, and IMO it makes Clevelanders sound pretty desperate (as the June 2010 Reason Magazine article about Cleveland pointed out so adeptly).
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,315,809 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by seisky
A great art museum does not equal a thriving art scene
Exactly. Just like having "the second-largest theater district in the US" does not equal a thriving theater scene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seisky
Artists don't move to cities for their art museum, they move to cities where other artists are living and making work and to be a part of a community of other creative people. Cultural movements often stem from a notable location in which new ideas are coming from. Obviously, great art can come from anywhere, but how can you honestly think that it's merely a coincidence that so many great artists and musicians live in places like Brooklyn today? I think that it's crazy to think that someone is more cultured because they go to a museum that is ranked higher than the museum that someone else in a different city might go to.
It's ridiculous how fast you all are dismissing CowsAndBeer's posts just because he doesn't favor Cleveland/Cincinnatti. There's far more to culture than going to a museum to see what's already been done by an established artist.
First of all, Cleveland does have a thriving community of artists. Collinwood, Tremont, and Ohio City are packed with art galleries, and are continuing to grow. Local theater companies are around as well, such as the well know Great Lakes Theater, and Dobama.
Secondly, I think there is something to be said for hosting great works of art, in terms of a city's cultural level. Rome and Venice are not known for churning out new artists, plays, etc., but they are known for hosting some of the best art in history. Those cities are considered cultural centers of the world, though they may not be contributing much to current culture. They are nonetheless Mecca's for culture seekers to travel to. Cleveland is the same, to a lesser extent.
First of all, Cleveland does have a thriving community of artists. Collinwood, Tremont, and Ohio City are packed with art galleries, and are continuing to grow. Local theater companies are around as well, such as the well know Great Lakes Theater, and Dobama.
Secondly, I think there is something to be said for hosting great works of art, in terms of a city's cultural level. Rome and Venice are not known for churning out new artists, plays, etc., but they are known for hosting some of the best art in history. Those cities are considered cultural centers of the world, though they may not be contributing much to current culture. They are nonetheless Mecca's for culture seekers to travel to. Cleveland is the same, to a lesser extent.
Don't forget about Little Italy artists!
Cleveland generally gets great artist reviews, besides the rich arts history -- here's another highlight on the current art scene:
^ Prof, I wouldn't worry too much about what the above purveyors of low-culture Columbus boy-bands, bars, and beer conclude about high-culture Cleveland and Cincinnati art offerings and institutions. Nothing more happening in Cbus than chaff being blown about in the wind--here today, gone tomorrow. Undoubtedly, if one's 35 or older, they'll understand.
I can't say I have the pulse of any arts scene. It's just not my thing. However, Cleveland and Cincinnati have a much older overall population than Columbus (I don't know Milwaukee's average age). Since youth tends to translate into trends, the poster may very well have a point. I know you'll just say this is Columbus boosterism as usual, but it does have a logical ring to it. Whether or not it's actually true, I don't know, especially considering the arts scene in general is so subjective.
Last edited by jbcmh81; 07-20-2013 at 11:49 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
