LEA Is Back! Sort of! Second Life Endowment for the Arts Announced

[Scylla Rhiadra]

https://modemworld.me/2020/09/11/announcing-the-second-life-endowment-for-the-arts/

I think this is an excellent thing. It's scheduled to open in January.

I hope it is managed more carefully than the last one!

Quote

Announced today, and starting an January 2021, the Second Life Endowment for the Arts (SLEA) will operate across seven regions supplied by Linden Lab, and managed by Tansee and Hannington supported by a Board of Advisers (the full list of whom is yet to be announced), and a team of volunteers to help in the day-to-day operations, once the new regions are open.

The seven regions, which are currently being set-up, will comprise the following:

• A  central hub (SLEA7). This will likely include:
  • A landing point.
  • Facilities for SLEA coordinators, advisers and volunteers.
  • An education centre.
  • A events centre to support arts activities and events across Second Life.
  • A teleport hub serving the SLEA grant regions and information on the artists currently exhibiting.
  • The SLEA Theatre for mounting art-related and special events.
  • An art Challenge corner.
• Four Full regions (SLEA1-3 and SLEA6) for region-wide art installations ranging from 1 to 6 months duration.
• A single region (SLEA4) providing four quarter-region installation spaces.
• A sandbox region. This will include an artist hangout and club for events and parties along with a new underwater building area.

 

[Prokofy Neva]

Well, there's trouble. As long as the Board of Advisers is done by some non-democratic process, by Linden Lab choosing their friends, it can't work. 

Democracy is always hard to do. It's hard to decide who the class of constituents should be who should be franchised to vote. But not THAT hard because if you have criteria to let someone in the SL17B or the Shop-Hops, you can have them for this. Say, a store with X amount of income. A site already selected for Destinations (not fair, but at least widens the list from "LL in secret"). Traffic? Maybe just a simple registration system. You register to vote and give a URL to your store, its name, etc. Or if you are an artist, you send a literal portfolio of work. I don't for a minute think this will ever happen, and I expect the worst out of this. People will think, "Well, we got rid of this dog-in-the-manager or that difficult or even corrupt person". But institutions are what curb bad human behaviour, not picking friends better.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

8 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Well, there's trouble. As long as the Board of Advisers is done by some non-democratic process, by Linden Lab choosing their friends, it can't work. 

Democracy is always hard to do. It's hard to decide who the class of constituents should be who should be franchised to vote. But not THAT hard because if you have criteria to let someone in the SL17B or the Shop-Hops, you can have them for this. Say, a store with X amount of income. A site already selected for Destinations (not fair, but at least widens the list from "LL in secret"). Traffic? Maybe just a simple registration system. You register to vote and give a URL to your store, its name, etc. Or if you are an artist, you send a literal portfolio of work. I don't for a minute think this will ever happen, and I expect the worst out of this. People will think, "Well, we got rid of this dog-in-the-manager or that difficult or even corrupt person". But institutions are what curb bad human behaviour, not picking friends better.

This is not a bad idea in principle. Why not suggest it? There are going to be some opportunities to talk about this.

[Prokofy Neva]

14 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

This is not a bad idea in principle. Why not suggest it? There are going to be some opportunities to talk about this.

My contribution to art is SL is made by buying it. I really think there is no better contribution to be had. For that, the artists have to put the art to sale. Not all of them want to do that. OK. But if you want to have support, selling the art is the first and best way to sustain it. You can then get into all these other democratic, socialist, Soviet, whatever models, but I personally am not really an artist. I may make an art thing as a parody right now but I have no investment in the art of art, so to speak. I buy it; I put money in tip jars. More people will be able to do this when this gang gets out of the way.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

11 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

My contribution to art is SL is made by buying it. I really think there is no better contribution to be had. For that, the artists have to put the art to sale. Not all of them want to do that. OK.

I am unclear, other than the sort of peripheral concern that coteries and cliques develop, why you think it would produce better art if, for instance, Bryn Oh had to rely on a tip jar at her installations?

[Prokofy Neva]

11 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I am unclear, other than the sort of peripheral concern that coteries and cliques develop, why you think it would produce better art if, for instance, Bryn Oh had to rely on a tip jar at her installations?

*Blinks*

Let's rehearse it again for you:

But if you want to have support, selling the art is the first and best way to sustain it. 

I buy it; I put money in tip jars

 

So There are two things here:

1. Buying art for a price set by the artist.

2. Tip jars.

Bryn Oh can set her art to sale. Indeed she does that. Indeed I have bought it. It might be set to $600; it might be set to $2000. She could charge more. She could advertise more. The Lindens could assist with advertising rather than subsidies of the doing of art itself.

Selling art brings in more money than tip jars.

If Bryn had to rely on sales and tips, but mainly sales, she would face a problem: a market that does not understand her or wish to buy her because of mass taste.

Even so, there would be some not a victim of mass taste, if you will (which I don't think is a bad thing), who would buy her stuff. Like me, even if I can't make "motel art" out of it.

That won't be enough for her to live on then. So as in RL, she will have to decide to make more cute rabbits that are least angsty, so they sell, or starve, so to speak, although no one with a high-end graphics cart, high-speed internet, computer, and leisure time could be said to be "starving" if they access SL.

So then she could either try to get a real-world private foundation grant or government grant -- and surprisingly, there are those who have done this; they may not be in the LEA clique.

Or someone could mount all this LEA stuff done in SL, which I suspect is not very conducive to either producing good art or non-starving artists who can then make good art.

One of the reasons is that unlike real life, there is no democracy or oversight or process as in real government or real foundations. It's the Lindens' friends, and whatever they work out. Or it's the Soviet Writers' Union.

So the solution is to try to broaden the LEA so it isn't so ridiculous, but frankly, more people checking off their art for sale; the Lindens providing more avenues of advertisement, including the splash screen; that would be more helpful and less abused.

 

[Chroma Starlight]

33 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

My contribution to art is SL is made by buying it. I really think there is no better contribution to be had. For that, the artists have to put the art to sale. Not all of them want to do that. OK. But if you want to have support, selling the art is the first and best way to sustain it. You can then get into all these other democratic, socialist, Soviet, whatever models, but I personally am not really an artist. I may make an art thing as a parody right now but I have no investment in the art of art, so to speak. I buy it; I put money in tip jars. More people will be able to do this when this gang gets out of the way.

I think institutions like these help artists network, develop portfolios, and potentially help to progress the culture of the medium itself for the present. Art is cultural, even spiritual, and there are a lot of dimensions to consider, few of them economic.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Chroma Starlight

[Prokofy Neva]

8 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

I think institutions like these help artists network, develop portfolios, and potentially help to progress the culture of the medium itself for the present. Art is culture, even spiritual, there are a lot of dimensions to consider, few of them economic.

Sure. And none of those institutions function like this: a powerful company that sells server space calls in a few of their friends and gives them money to make art pieces. That is, banks do that, actually. But even banks try to keep some element of relevance and plausibility to what they are doing in order to *keep the value of their art to resell*.

Instead, there are institutions like MOMA with boards, with curators, with fund-raising departments, with democracy, with accountability, that gets that server company to give them a corporate contribution, but which then doesn't let them run the selection of artists and art. That is, there might be some symbiosis here, and it's a complicated subject, but it is never as crass and crude as it is in our virtual world.

There are open procedures to hire and vet and deploy curators; board members have fiscal and civic responsibility; I know of one museum in NYC that threw a wealthy Russian oligarch's wife off the board when he was arrested for fraud because the art world has to be at least not blatantly tied to crime and corruption.

Boards in private foundations and boards in government-funded councils have transparent criteria; when you have something like the "Piss Christ" is sets off controversy and inspections and de-funding and so on. Nowadays, when an institution sees they have nothing but white boys in their show rooms, they have a crisis and people are fired and they begin to broaden out and try to be more inclusive and bring in women and people of colour. And so on. Process. Democracy. Transparency.

They are all economic. All of them. Every bit of it. And if you think they are not, you haven't actually studied real art worlds in the real world.

The issue then is to make what is essentially a part of the economic and an economic function -- sustaining the literal livelihoods of artists; paying for buildings and electricity; paying costs of purchases -- a transparent and democratic and inclusive process.

If you imagine that because our world is virtual and you can fly and buy fairy wings for two cents on 30L Saturday, that therefore the economic concerns of what Kazimir Malevich, one of my authors, used to call the "Grub World," don't come to play, then think again. I mean, look at how Kazimir starved and nearly died if the American Relief Committee hadn't sent him some care packages once the Bolsheviks found his black square and such too critical of them and their need for "socialist realism".

The analogy is that people need to at least have some money to rez out a cube and upload a texture; they may need an entire sim to deploy a build on. Someone has to pay for it. Fairies do not pay for it.

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Prokofy Neva

[Chroma Starlight]

17 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Sure. And none of those institutions function like this: a powerful company that sells server space calls in a few of their friends and gives them money to make art pieces. That is, banks do that, actually. But even banks try to keep some element of relevance and plausibility to what they are doing in order to *keep the value of their art to resell*.

(...)

If you imagine that because our world is virtual and you can fly and buy fairy wings for two cents on 30L Saturday, that therefore the economic concerns of what Kazimir Malevich, one of my authors, used to call the "Grub World," don't come to play, then think again. I mean, look at how Kazimir starved and nearly died if the American Relief Committee hadn't sent him some care packages once the Bolsheviks found his black square and such too critical of them and their need for "socialist realism".

The analogy is that people need to at least have some money to rez out a cube and upload a texture; they may need an entire sim to deploy a build on. Someone has to pay for it. Fairies do not pay for it.

I don't think the community of Second Life artists is so great that Linden Lab has the luxury of doing it with institutions, boards, curators, fund-raising departments, "democratic" "accountability," or any of that, and I can certainly understand why they may have their own reasons for the selections that they make. It's still a long-term investment in the community, and everyone benefits whether or not they're directly involved.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

*Blinks*

Let's rehearse it again for you:

But if you want to have support, selling the art is the first and best way to sustain it. 

I buy it; I put money in tip jars

 

So There are two things here:

1. Buying art for a price set by the artist.

2. Tip jars.

Bryn Oh can set her art to sale. Indeed she does that. Indeed I have bought it. It might be set to $600; it might be set to $2000. She could charge more. She could advertise more. The Lindens could assist with advertising rather than subsidies of the doing of art itself.

Selling art brings in more money than tip jars.

If Bryn had to rely on sales and tips, but mainly sales, she would face a problem: a market that does not understand her or wish to buy her because of mass taste.

Even so, there would be some not a victim of mass taste, if you will (which I don't think is a bad thing), who would buy her stuff. Like me, even if I can't make "motel art" out of it.

That won't be enough for her to live on then. So as in RL, she will have to decide to make more cute rabbits that are least angsty, so they sell, or starve, so to speak, although no one with a high-end graphics cart, high-speed internet, computer, and leisure time could be said to be "starving" if they access SL.

So then she could either try to get a real-world private foundation grant or government grant -- and surprisingly, there are those who have done this; they may not be in the LEA clique.

Or someone could mount all this LEA stuff done in SL, which I suspect is not very conducive to either producing good art or non-starving artists who can then make good art.

One of the reasons is that unlike real life, there is no democracy or oversight or process as in real government or real foundations. It's the Lindens' friends, and whatever they work out. Or it's the Soviet Writers' Union.

So the solution is to try to broaden the LEA so it isn't so ridiculous, but frankly, more people checking off their art for sale; the Lindens providing more avenues of advertisement, including the splash screen; that would be more helpful and less abused.

 

Sorry Prok, but not a thing you've said here actually answers my question, which I will not repeat with the relevant bit bolded:

"Why [do] you think it would produce better art if, for instance, Bryn Oh had to rely on a tip jar at her installations?"

Producing more and better art is surely the function of SLEA? You seem much more interested in . . . well, to be honest, I'm not sure what you're interested in here, other than maybe ensuring that the hated (and mostly fictional) FIC not be permitted to "control" this.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Gatogateau]

42 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"Why [do] you think it would produce better art if, for instance, Bryn Oh had to rely on a tip jar at her installations?"

I'm not sure why this is an either/or situation, in fact, I think it is a false dichotomy — that a renewed LEA is contradictory to art sales.

That it would produce *better* art? Since art is subjective, I just really don't see the connection. Certainly funding can help, whether that is through allotting space in which to create or actual cash. 

I'm happy to see LEA back and I am hoping one of my friends will seize the opportunity yet again to provide us with her unique perspectives on things.

[Qie Niangao]

Maybe I'm too much the capitalist here, but seems to me the beneficiaries of SLEA (and LEA before it) are, in order:

1. Linden Lab, by virtue of elevated utility, reputation, and user population for the SL platform
2. Future immersive experience artists who will build on these still early explorations of virtual world art
3. Those who experience art in Second Life
4. Artists who use the opportunity to produce cutting edge virtual world art

To actually support working artists seems pretty beside the point. For one thing, these works are generally outside the practical scope and scale of private exhibition. There are plenty of galleries; SLEA is for art that doesn't fit gallery walls or business models.

I don't have any particular insight about how SLEA can best succeed. I'm just hoping the priorities -- the figures of merit for assessing success -- are more ambitious than exhibiting the "best art" in Second Life.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Gatogateau said:

I'm not sure why this is an either/or situation, in fact, I think it is a false dichotomy — that a renewed LEA is contradictory to art sales.

That it would produce *better* art? Since art is subjective, I just really don't see the connection. Certainly funding can help, whether that is through allotting space in which to create or actual cash. 

I'm happy to see LEA back and I am hoping one of my friends will seize the opportunity yet again to provide us with her unique perspectives on things.

I don't think that this is a false dichotomy, because I don't think I've set it up as a dichotomy in the first place. Does support for artists help produce better art? Well, historically speaking, there's good reason to think that it's one of the factors. Think, for instance, of the Renaissance, when wealthy patrons competed with each other to support the "best" artists for the production of public art. And the result was, well . . . the Renaissance.

But that does not mean, nor did I say, that support for artists is a necessary precondition for good art, nor does it mean that all artists who are supported are necessarily "better" at what they do than those who are not. It's just another factor, albeit sometimes an important one. I don't think I suggested otherwise.

I'd also like to disagree (respectfully, of course) with your suggestion that "art is subjective," if by that you mean purely subjective. The criteria by which any individual, or any culture or age, evaluates art are neither wholly objective nor subjective, but actually both at the same time, and to differing degrees. On the whole, that art which "lasts" tends to be that which is "best" because it has demonstrated itself as amenable to multiple interpretations and appreciations from different ages. We still love Bernini and Michelangelo, David and Beardsley, because they still "speak" to us, although probably in different ways than they spoke to past ages.

The existence of "outliers" and fashions and trends in the arts demonstrates that there is also a more subjective element. There are always the unappreciated geniuses who are discovered by subsequent ages, and the "great" artists who are dismissed or forgotten after their time has passed.

And of course individuals have subjective tastes -- but that doesn't mean that there aren't also objective ways to evaluate art. And it is possible to stand outside of one's own subjectivity too. To use a literary example, I absolutely despise the writing of D. H. Lawrence. He almost literally nauseates me. But that doesn't mean I can't also concede that he's a "great" writer -- important, technically skilled, influential, and appealing to a great many other people. The false dichotomy here is the either/or of objective or subjective. It's surely more complicated than that?

If you didn't mean to suggest that there weren't also objective measures of what constitutes good art, then you can ignore what I said above, and we are in agreement.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Chic Aeon]

3 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Producing more and better art is surely the function of SLEA?

 

Note that I understand your quote was not really "from you"

 

That was never a purpose of the original LEA and hopefully it will not be the goal of the new version. It was wonderful to have some outstanding art -- especially at the beginning before the August 2013 debacle when we lost a lot of great artists.  Primarily it was about giving artist s place to grow and spread there wings and try out ideas which they would otherwise not have been able to create.  I am happy that I was a part for so many years and I wish the new folks great success. It isn't an easy job.  

 

It was a long and sometimes wondrous journey. I hope the new rendition lives up to the legacy. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

37 minutes ago, Chic Aeon said:

Primarily it was about giving artist s place to grow and spread there wings and try out ideas which they would otherwise not have been able to create.

I think that's all i really mean by "more and better art." I certainly am not suggesting some sort of "official criteria" by which the excellence of the art to be produced is judged.

To use an historical example, entering into the business of painting in 18th Britain likely meant for most doing a lot of hack work to obtain the money to survive, buy more canvasses, etc. It meant taking commissions to paint someone farmer's prize pig, or his fields and rural manor, or maybe his fiance.

Once freed from that brutal necessity of doing such workaday painting just to live, then that artist can, conceivably, become a Gainsborough or a Reynolds, spreading their wings as you say, and producing art according to their aesthetic judgment and not merely the dictates of the person commissioning their work.

Some artists spread their wings but remain forever stubbornly anchored to the sullen earth. Others manage to fly. Giving them the space and time and support to try will help at least a few succeed with the latter . . . one hopes.

[Gatogateau]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I don't think that this is a false dichotomy, because I don't think I've set it up as a dichotomy in the first place. Does support for artists help produce better art? Well, historically speaking, there's good reason to think that it's one of the factors. Think, for instance, of the Renaissance, when wealthy patrons competed with each other to support the "best" artists for the production of public art. And the result was, well . . . the Renaissance.

But that does not mean, nor did I say, that support for artists is a necessary precondition for good art, nor does it mean that all artists who are supported are necessarily "better" at what they do than those who are not. It's just another factor, albeit sometimes an important one. I don't think I suggested otherwise.

I'd also like to disagree (respectfully, of course) with your suggestion that "art is subjective," if by that you mean purely subjective. The criteria by which any individual, or any culture or age, evaluates art are neither wholly objective nor subjective, but actually both at the same time, and to differing degrees. On the whole, that art which "lasts" tends to be that which is "best" because it has demonstrated itself as amenable to multiple interpretations and appreciations from different ages. We still love Bernini and Michelangelo, David and Beardsley, because they still "speak" to us, although probably in different ways than they spoke to past ages.

The existence of "outliers" and fashions and trends in the arts demonstrates that there is also a more subjective element. There are always the unappreciated geniuses who are discovered by subsequent ages, and the "great" artists who are dismissed or forgotten after their time has passed.

And of course individuals have subjective tastes -- but that doesn't mean that there aren't also objective ways to evaluate art. And it is possible to stand outside of one's own subjectivity too. To use a literary example, I absolutely despise the writing of D. H. Lawrence. He almost literally nauseates me. But that doesn't mean I can't also concede that he's a "great" writer -- important, technically skilled, influential, and appealing to a great many other people. The false dichotomy here is the either/or of objective or subjective. It's surely more complicated than that?

If you didn't mean to suggest that there weren't also objective measures of what constitutes good art, then you can ignore what I said above, and we are in agreement.

Wait. Wut?

You didn't set it up as a false dichotomy, Prok did. I thought I said something along the line that "support" whether it came from having the space to create (that would be SLEA) or whether it came about from financial (people buying art), can help artists, yes. But helping artists doesn't equate into better art necessarily.

As far as the subjectivity of art, yes, there are certain conventions that list this as "good" and that as "bad" but... wut?

Edited September 12, 2020 by Gatogateau

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Gatogateau said:

Wait. Wut?

You didn't set it up as a dichotomy, Prok did. I thought I said something along the line that "support" whether it came from having the space to create (that would be SLEA) or whether it came about from financial (people buying art), can help artists, yes. But helping artists doesn't equate into better art necessarily.

As far as the subjectivity of art, yes, there are certain conventions that list this as "good" and that as "bad" but... wut?

Ok, I misunderstood you, probably because you were quoting me rather than Prok.

I don't disagree with anything you say here at all.

[Gatogateau]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Ok, I misunderstood you, probably because you were quoting me rather than Prok.

There was a reason for that...

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Gatogateau said:

There was a reason for that...

Beware poking the Scylla.

[Gatogateau]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Beware poking the Scylla.

Seriously? Seriously!? Duuuude. You know better than to give me a straight line like this!!!!

/me sits on typing paws and mews pitifully, while eyeing the nice leather boots

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

Seriously? Seriously!? Duuuude. You know better than to give me a straight line like this!!!!

/me sits on typing paws and mews pitifully, while eyeing the nice leather boots

/me scritches you under the chin.

Do you think an interactive cat-scritching-and-leather-boot "Experience" would make for an interesting installation?

I'll start drafting the proposal.

[Gatogateau]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

/me scritches you under the chin.

Do you think an interactive cat-scritching-and-leather-boot "Experience" would make for an interesting installation?

I'll start drafting the proposal.

Yes please.

Don't forget to include the inquiry into metaphysical contradictions and their solutions in the proposal. Also, the meaning behind kibble.

[Prokofy Neva]

20 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Sorry Prok, but not a thing you've said here actually answers my question, which I will not repeat with the relevant bit bolded:

"Why [do] you think it would produce better art if, for instance, Bryn Oh had to rely on a tip jar at her installations?"

Producing more and better art is surely the function of SLEA? You seem much more interested in . . . well, to be honest, I'm not sure what you're interested in here, other than maybe ensuring that the hated (and mostly fictional) FIC not be permitted to "control" this.

Um, well, let me try again, although I know from experience that it will be impossible to break through the ideological windshields.

You've implied that I expected Bryn Oh to rely on a tip jar only, which would mean $50 and $100 drops that couldn't possibly sustain anything.

But I've said she should have sales. Sales might sustain her expenses in SL, like tier and uploads; it might even give her a modest income. PS, she *has* sales, and some of it is quite expensive, so she's not a good example for the use case. Could sales sustain her as an artist? Well, she's be crazy to expect SL to do that, and quite frankly -- and this needs to be said again and again apparently -- absolutely nothing that the LEA or new version of it does now or forever can ever sustain "her as an artist" as it will have a rotating roster of people it partly sustains. It is not the job of Linden Lab, the public, SL as a platform, given its limitations, to support artists individually forever, or even support "art" as a general construct. The question is, with its limited capacity, it will do anything really at all for good art as it is generally understood in RL. That is in doubt, in my view.

But I do mention sales, because many artists do not put their work to sale, thinking it is "crass" -- I just went to yet another tiresome show where that was happening with many of the artists. They are too cool for school, or they think this diminishes them or something, or they think forcing a personal contact jacks up the price, or who knows. But it's stupid. Art should be sold. The kind of art in SL especially, much of which is framed, but even sculptures and installations, which are perfect in a 3D world even for a personal space like a home or office.

I do want to point out your sleight of hand here, which is not a new experience. I was talking about the need of artists to get paid *something* and to be sure to offset costs, which they can do, if they get over their ideological bias against selling their art.

You then injected the idea of "better". See, the socialist illusion that there is something crass or evil about selling art, and then the strange proposition that anyone doing so is not going to be "better" or can't "become better" -- well, it's pretty sinister.

An artist who can sell art in SL by leaving it on sale where it kachings all day without her being there is in fact better off, because she has paid some costs of SL, and maybe some RL bills, that means she doesn't have to do even in a fraction the many things that artists in RL have to do, like wait tables or design t-shirts or whatever. But I can only repeat that selling art does not diminish an artist's greatness. There is no negative to selling art. Can it physically/spiritually/literally/metaphorically "make them a better artist"? Well that's an abstraction that I find irrelevant, and made in bad faith, and falsely impugned to me, among many bad-faith things about it. There are many factors that can make you "better". Artists I actually know in RL, including some famous ones, say that when you are new, or very young, the main thing to do is not "good" but "a lot". That you get better with practice which only comes from "a lot," not seeking perfection in "few".
 

I realize that when there are so many robots to talk around here, it's impossible to get anything across, but I don't have any vested interest in "preventing the FIC" from getting yet another cozy birth in SL. There is almost nothing I can do to prevent that, and it tends to sometimes self-correct as a situation by the sheer passage of time. A situation in which a small group of friends of a company chosen for friend status, and not competence, get their hands on pots of money is not a recipe for the greatness of art, anywhere in the universe or the metaverse. We have the Soviet Composers' Union to look at to explain that, or the Writers' Union or even the Moscow City Committee for Graphic Artists, post "Bulldozer Exhibition". 

If artists can sell their works freely, that enlarges the number of people who know them, it offsets their costs. They can't charge RL prices in all but few circumstances; they fail when they do that (as I found by giving one prominent SL artist a free store, even -- no one can pay $5000 for a painting; few, at least).  But if they price below that, especially in the $2000 or better $500 range, they will sell.

Should they be allowed to sell them at the Linden-sponsored  LEA? Well, given the way it is structured, that poses a problem. It means that the art FIC gets a cash cow that others don't get and that is really unfair. Maybe if the LEA was different, I'd be for there being a museum store like any normal RL gallery. Or maybe they should have LMs back to their private galleries. But it's really a conundrum here, because it is NOT organized fairly.

And now we know for sure, as the announcement is out. Not a word in this press release about how the people will be selected; what the criteria for the selection of the council that selects them will be; whether they will have term limits; whether the Lindens will exercise more supervision here than they did last time, etc. (Although I don't think lack of supervision is the problem, just as it wasn't with the authoritarian Sansar FIC that developed; it's the very nature of the beast that keeps replicating these bad situations -- no open bidding, no open criteria, etc.

UPDATE: I have made various inquiries to try to understand this, and here is what I got. This paragraph is misleading:

Quote

Since LEA ended in late 2019, many members of the community have expressed an interest in reviving the idea of establishing another official showcase hub for the arts in Second Life. In particular, both Tansee and Hannington led a grassroots effort to revive LEA that resulted in the formation of the Hannington Endowment for the Arts in late 2019. That initiative, which has drawn the interest, respect and participation of many artists in SL, proved the concept and the demand from the arts community in Second Life. SLEA promises even more access to engaging events, exhibitions and experiences in the arts for the Second Life community. It is anticipated that the HEA will continue as a separate entity for those who wish to participate in its activities

It makes it seem as if there *was* this grassroots effort run by Tansee and Hannington but  now there will be this other thing called SLEA. When they say "it is anticipated that HEA will continue as a separate entity" -- that sounds like they are peeling off from their volunteer effort, new people are coming in, and they are being thanked for their service.

But to clarify, the new people running this ARE Tansee and Hannington. The volunteers spearheading a rebirth of LEA *ARE* the new SLEA. This is not self-evident, and if you think it is, it's merely because you're an insider. It really is not clear because it really is not spelled out.

So now that we know THESE SAME PEOPLE are put in charge, without any kind of open process or open bidding, just because they cared and volunteered and bothered (that's often how it happens in RL, too) we can only hope, that they will pick equitable and credible advisors and credible projects by transparent criteria.

It also strikes me that the set-up of the new LEA is very bureaucratic and overburdened with functions (are they paid?) that take away from the actual display of art and become something else, like "social media," which can be a huge time-consuming chore, and should be compensated -- yet the question is whether the artists should simply do their own social media so that you aren't forced to drain money and time on a social media paid position.

So the SLEA has highlighted the idea in its mission of the hope that it will drive traffic to artists' own galleries. It won't be a sink of traffic itself and collapse on itself (and I'm not sure that was the issue for the LEA but may have contributed). It's hard to make any collective laggy Linden destination a driver of anything, but maybe, if it doesn't have a lot of visitors after the opening.

The Coordinators Office; Volunteer Center where all the blogging and event planning is organized; and Education Center -- this is all art bureaucracy for which the RL world is famous, and it is not art and the display and viewing of art, and strikes me as prone to particular abuse and distraction in the SL context. That is, sure, somebody has to make a schedule for a thing like that but I can only say it appears to be overbalanced, it appears to be a busy hive "about itself" and not about the art. I think personally an enterprise like this shouldn't be burdened with "education," organizing classes" and "events" are likely best kept to shows only, but then, it doesn't matter what I think, I'm not an artist or any major patron of the arts in SL, I'm just a social critic who hopes that the world can be better and not step on the same rakes again and again.

So when you criticize a thing like this, with beloved Lindens and beloved art FIC, what happens? First, you are told that you are "jealous" or "negative," merely trying to sabotage the FIC. Fun fact: no one needs me to do that, as it self-sabotages a lot of the time, but whatever, it isn't my goal. Describing and criticizing isn't destructive but necessary in a liberal democratic society; you all practice it in RL but seem strangely reluctant about it in SL. Second, you are told this is only a draft, it will change, why criticize it?

Well, because it's no accident comrades that in the grand announcement of this enterprise NOT A WORD is explained of the process of selection and criteria for curation -- because that must be left in the pocket of the Lindens and their friends. UPDATE: So yes, it is a pocket Linden affair, given that people who lobbied the Lindens were blessed by the Lindens and obtained resources. So the conclusion you can only draw is: lobby the Lindens yourself? That often fails dramatically from what I see of other people doing this; I don't attempt it myself. Lobby the Linden favourites? Well, that's what you are left with.

It's like how Patch Linden just airily announced that he was going to have some meetings with the famous pod creator (whose spam cars are critiqued not only by me) and in fact have even MORE projects with this person -- projects that are a mystery, and about which there was no open bid -- "just because". Because a private company "can do that". Private companies aren't required to open-bid everything by law; it's just a good practice. But it's telling once again of how especially the current Lindens do not see SL as a world; they see it as a canvas not for residents to draw on and  make a world as a result; they see it as their canvas to draw on and make their world with their friends. They see it as picking and choosing what they think works for their corporate mission to sell software and a platform; they really no longer have aspirations to build a world OR a sense of responsibility to care-take the world that sprouted in spite of them and make it fair and just. Governance is too costly. I hold this up as an object lesson to Microsoft Alt developers who have no clue what they are doing and what's in store. If I can't find an answer to why I get iphoto file errors on Windows 10 now on their site and even in their fan forums without being told my question is answered when it isn't, think is what is in store. Whew, boy...

But the Lindens don't have that existence of massiveness now or yet to come. They have a boutique product here with what, 30,000 concurrent? 100,000 monthly uniques? The figures are secret now so I have idea. But it's not a million. It's a very densely woven product with sprawl, to be sure, and much of it they safely or not safely ignore. But for those willing to pay attention to something called "art and artists," it seems it is entirely within their capacity to in fact make it fair and credible.

Nota Bene: I have absolutely no aspiration to be on any board of anything with the Lindens, least of all this. I don't have the time or inclination and I wouldn't want to spend all the time I log on fighting with Lindens and their fanboyz over something like this. I also have NO IDEA what the drama back story is to the Hansington Center, but that those people are not even being given what is called in the business "a termination grant" seems pretty clear.  That they are free to continue on their own appears like a kiss-off, but then, maybe that's a good thing, again, I didn't follow all the drama at all. What I'm going to say as a completely unbriefed outsider, it does seem odd that the residents who, on their own dime, spent a great deal of effort to stop the end of the LEA and help revive it, are being told now they are free to...keep their own center going (?) -- well, it speaks for itself, no? No good deed goes unpunished, sort of thing? On the other hand, if they would have ensured that the new LEA would become a particularly bad sink hole of FIC mania, understood. The FIC is dead. Long live the FIC!

I simply don't know what that story is, but I am given pause, especially by this thread and what Dekka says.  I get it about art and craft, and yes, a lot of what is in SL is craft, but craft can be arty too. I think most artists do not use all the affordances of the virtual world and those who do tend to select particles and twisted prims which gets to be a bore. So when I see the organizational chart of the new SLEA has a lot of top heavy things about events, and social media and education, it does seem like what he described as "look at me, here" -- what I have always called *reputational enhancement*. Many people look at an enterprise in SL, and if they don't see any actual money changing hands, they say, why, that person is selfless and doing the Lord's work. But I always point out that from Day One, and even after the ratings were removed from profiles, it's about *reputational enhancement* which is converted to gold easily enough. It converts to trips to your store and your offerings; it converts to other grants and perks; it just converts, period, so let's not be children here. Chic also discusses the problem of "sim styling" in this thread, i.e. what is planned to be a space for the exhibit of various artists becomes a space for a few people to style sims and help out those merchants and themselves with -- again, at least reputational enhancement if nothing else.

Yes, there is a whole debate even within high-end merchants' events whether all work has to be original; whether models can be used; how much "inspiration" is allowed before it infringes copyright, and so on. This is a daily struggle all over SL. 

So let me conclude by saying I will visit the new LEA; I will likely find some interesting artists; I will even follow some back to their galleries and maybe even buy some works. I will not imagine I am helping to create opportunities for new artists, however, especially minority artists and those who are not from the first world. I fear some of them known well in SL may have died of COVID : (   
 

UPDATE So to summarize, LEA was shut down when the last round of FICsters failed objectively and subjectively, and even for the Lindens. A set of people then lobbied to have a new one made. For their efforts, they were blessed as the new SLEA's curators, if you will, the people to run the project. What happens next? They invite their friends and it fails? They survive a year of drama and infighting and crazy and quit and the Lindens never do anything like this again? Let me suggest that to the extent they want to avoid having this happen again, they have to pick credible advisors (and PS, I don't want to be in this) -- advisors that are credible to the general uninformed, non-insider public, and credible to the insiders. The art they select should gain recognition by the general public AND by the insider art world and by RL art critics. That can be achieved by making actual transparent criteria. That means:

o Make a mission statement - these are best kept short

o Make an ideological statement about whether art in a virtual world is art or craft; how it differs; what its prospects are

o Make a business plan - trim down the excessive wish-list of events, and theaters, and concerts -- it's an art foundation and should first do art, and add other things later -- educational seminars really should be cut as way too ambitious

o Make goals to first have simple and them more detailed criteria for selection -- 1) age of avatar 2) number of inworld exhibitions; 3) revenue from sales (this question can be asked and answered on the honours system and need not be publicized; in the real world, it would be transparently available information so please don't invoke "privacy" 4) press coverage in SL related blogs and media and RL media.

o Make definitions -- yes, mesh models may be used, no, copyright can't be abused, etc.

Remember how the last LEA fell apart: self-dealing, insider cliquishness, irrelevancy to the general art scene, the "styling a sim" and "fairies" problem, the drama and favouritism, the lack of Linden supervisions. If it is set up properly at first with Linden supervision, it will need less later.

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Prokofy Neva

[Prokofy Neva]

21 hours ago, Chroma Starlight said:

I don't think the community of Second Life artists is so great that Linden Lab has the luxury of doing it with institutions, boards, curators, fund-raising departments, "democratic" "accountability," or any of that, and I can certainly understand why they may have their own reasons for the selections that they make. It's still a long-term investment in the community, and everyone benefits whether or not they're directly involved.

So democracy and accountability are a "luxury". Merely because the community is small. I never think it pays to make democracy and accountability "a luxury" as history shows. I think a minimum amount of transparency and open competition could help this be a better and more credible effort. In fact, the design of it as we see now is quite bureaucratic indeed even without the burden of fund-raising. Boards are important. Who gets on them affects who gets seen. So there should be a credible process here.

[Prokofy Neva]

17 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

Maybe I'm too much the capitalist here, but seems to me the beneficiaries of SLEA (and LEA before it) are, in order:

1. Linden Lab, by virtue of elevated utility, reputation, and user population for the SL platform
2. Future immersive experience artists who will build on these still early explorations of virtual world art
3. Those who experience art in Second Life
4. Artists who use the opportunity to produce cutting edge virtual world art

To actually support working artists seems pretty beside the point. For one thing, these works are generally outside the practical scope and scale of private exhibition. There are plenty of galleries; SLEA is for art that doesn't fit gallery walls or business models.

I don't have any particular insight about how SLEA can best succeed. I'm just hoping the priorities -- the figures of merit for assessing success -- are more ambitious than exhibiting the "best art" in Second Life.

It's utterly pragmatic and deep participation in the realities of RL to put the interests of Linden Lab first here. If it helps them look good, they attract investors; maybe they attract users, too (and many Silicon Valley enterprises do not care about the second, and care more about the first, as the business plan is to sell the bauble to another VC).

But Linden Lab has styled itself as a Better Worldist, and a world (we could debate to what extent they do or don't hold by their early and mid ideologies, but whatever). Their reputation depends on them not just showing the art of their board member's grandson, but actually good art. So actually, their interest in *this case* depends on them to do 2, 3, 4 by their own merits. They can either weight towards content as king, as past CEOs have done and do 2 and 4 and get media coverage for it; they can care more about 3; I'm just saying that to the extent they make a credible process for the board and the curation, they will succeed better with any of these 4. I have my doubts.