Food for discussion

One thing about a winter First Friday: Fewer openings make for a more relaxed pace (not that I'm complaining about busy nights, but sometimes it's nice just to stand/sit for a while and talk).

During one stop, near the end of the walk, the subject of art in restaurants came up.

A gallery-owner friend advanced the proposition that restaurants, rather than offering artists shows and taking commissions on sales, should purchase art outright from those artists -- whether from existing stock or by commissioning works -- just as they'd buy any other items of decor.

It's tempting to agree wholeheartedly ... but in this economy, and with profit margins in the restaurant industry already as thin as a truffle shaving, I can't say, "Yes. Absolutely," and mean it wholeheartedly. I know people in the business, and I know it can be a struggle just to keep the doors open.

You've already heard my contention that restaurants should showcase local art, and a program of rotating exhibits provides one way to do that. Such shows also allow a venue to change its "look" on a monthly, bimonthly or seasonal basis.

That said, there should be some intrinsic economic benefit to the artist, not merely the possibility of sales. Why? Because artists will send/invite their friends and family to the restaurant to see the works, and most people will get something to eat or drink while they're there. That's a tangible plus for the venue, while the artist can only hope to realize a real benefit.

One solution might be for the restaurant to pay for publicity materials, and commit to promoting the artist during the run of the show. It's not new cash for the artist, but it would save him or her an expenditure. Art rental is another option; so is a commitment to purchase one piece from each show, to build a permanent collection. (Yes, I know that would limit opportunities for new artists after the first year or so of operations; no plan is perfect.)

All of this is preface to asking, "What do you think?"

Should artists just be grateful for the exposure, especially in a brutally tight market, or do they have as much right to expect remuneration as the people who supply the table service, the furniture and the mood lighting?

No answers here ... just questions and what-ifs.

Speaking of all boats ...

Late start tonight. I'd apologize, but I was out watching an artist at work.

What? Last I checked, Bob Walkenhorst, in addition to being the best lyricist in rock 'n' roll, is also a painter.

So, anyway ... catch-up time.

Yesterday's post was intended to stir a pot. Once I put up a link on Facebook, it started stirring another one as well. The conversation took a turn -- whether left or right, I'm still not sure -- into who controls the Crossroads scene and whether or not abstract art has an undeserved stranglehold not only on the Kansas City scene but on the national culture as well.

That moved on into a back-and-forth -- sometimes heated, but that happens and no blood got drawn -- over whether representational or abstract work has greater value.

(Disclosure time: I'm an abstracter. Can't render to save my life. I'm okay with this, even though I have friends who insist I can learn to draw more than inferences, conclusions and a paycheck.)

Here's my take, in three parts.

1. Not all art is created equal. Within every style, every medium, there is work ranging from the exceptional the the instantly forgettable. That's a function of gift, skill, education (which can include self-teaching) and experience, and no one is saying those things don't matter.

2. There's no cabal keeping down representational artists in Kansas City. The Kemper and the Nerman both feature representational work, both in permanent collections and rotating exhibits, as do the major galleries across the area. "Contemporary" and "abstract" are not synonymous.

3. While not all art is created equal, there is no room for "us" and "them" in this or any arts community. There is too much at stake. Funding sources, both public and private, are dwindling. Established collectors can't always afford to buy on their previous scales, and potential new ones are skittish in this economy. That presents artists with two choices: to turn on each other as the water hole of available resources shrinks to a puddle, or to work together and support each other through the rough patch.

By and large, I believe people have chosen, are choosing and will continue to choose the latter path. That's something I've noticed pretty much across the board: There's a willingness to bring new artists along, even though that increases "competition," and to celebrate the successes of others.

I don't have a snappy closer to this one ... just a hope and a belief that things will continue to be that way -- that even if we can't agree on what style is best, we can appreciate the value of creativity and do our best to nurture it wherever it might be found.