One Of The Biggest Challenges New York Artists Face Is Affording Supplies

To make it as an artist in New York City, you’ll need resilience, passion and a singular creative vision. Oh, and supplies. You’ll probably need some supplies. 

While art supplies are the literal building blocks of many artists’ work, tools like paint, brushes, canvases, paper and clay are becoming harder to afford, especially in a city already as pricey as NYC. A recent report published by the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA) found that 40 percent of New York artists cannot afford art supplies, whatever they may be.

New York has long been mythologized as a home for established and emerging artists, a cultural hotbed that attracts and welcomes creatives from around the country and beyond. Yet due to the high costs of rent, food and pretty much everything else in the city ― not to mention the crippling weight of student loan debt ― young artists are largely unable to afford the materials they need to make work.

This sad statistic falls in line with much of the DCA’s findings, which depict an art world that primarily caters to and is made available to high-income earners. 

“Many low-income community members don’t feel empowered to engage in the variety of arts and culture opportunities in NYC,” one Queens public housing resident is quoted as saying in the report. “More needs to be done to bring the arts to low-income communities, and in bringing low-income community members to prestigious arts and culture institutions.” 

What can be done to ensure that art is a viable career choice for young people without a trust fund? The availability of cheaper rent for apartments and studio spaces seems to be a good starting point. According to the DCA, 90 percent of art and culture workers requested more affordable spaces to live and make work. 

As the report cites, there are approximately 250,000 arts and culture workers currently in NYC, 64 percent of whom moved to the city to pursue professional opportunities in the arts. The annual economic impact of the cultural sector overall is, according to the report, around $130 billion. 

In total, the DCA reached out to 180,000 New Yorkers between September 2016 and April 2017, polling culturally active individuals including artists, teachers, students, leaders of arts organizations and union members both in person and online. The overwhelming conclusion communicated by participants was a broader need for public and accessible arts programming and education spread throughout the five boroughs, especially in under-served and under-represented neighborhoods, ensuring art is indeed for everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status.

The DCA is accepting feedback on this report and issues related to it until May 31. “CreateNYC: What We Heard” events will also be held across the city.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=58d51905e4b03692bea4986b,5892091de4b0c90eff0155eb,58f92365e4b06b9cb91527a5,591eff27e4b034684b0bcedd

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

No, Authors Should Not Be Constrained By Gender Or Race In The Characters They Create

This was the BBC.com headline:

Spy Author Anthony Horowitz ‘Warned Off’ Creating Black Character:

Author Anthony Horowitz says he was “warned off” including a black character in his new book because it was “inappropriate” for a white writer. The creator of the Alex Rider teenage spy novels says an editor told him it could be considered “patronising” … Horowitz, who has written 10 novels featuring teenage spy Alex Rider, said there was a “chain of thought” in America that it was “inappropriate” for white writers to try to create black characters, something which he described as “dangerous territory”.

Dangerous territory, indeed.

What are we to make of this? Is an author limited to only writing characters within their race? What about gender? Religion? Age? Ethnicity? Sexual orientation? Where do the boundaries stop?

The old adage, “write what you know,” is a thesis that implies a writer should limit their imagination to the parameters of their own life and experience. But does that maxim still hold true today? Certainly in these times of viral accessibility, contact, research, knowledge, and interaction with people, places, and things far outside our own proximity is as every-day as 24/7 updates from the farthest corners of the globe. Our ability, consequently, to gain perspective sufficient enough to write outside one’s own “house” is not only doable, but, perhaps, universal and insightful, presuming one does it well.

But is it “patronizing”? Are we, as writers, simply not allowed to write outside, say, our culture, regardless of how well we might do it? Has society become so compartmentalized, so hypersensitive, politically correct, and wary of triggering repercussion, resentment, or misinterpretation that reaching beyond our own skin ― literally and figuratively – has become verboten to us as creative artists?

Interesting questions, these; particularly when you consider that men have been writing about women since time immemorial without particular societal concern that they couldn’t possibly know, couldn’t authentically muster, the requisite experiential perspective. It was a given that they could get the job done; accepted without debate. Yet the specificity, the sensitive and unique nature of being female, could be considered as disparate from the male experience as being black is to a white person, but that hasn’t stopped male authors, from Vladimir Nabokov to Wally Lamb, from creating their women of note.

Which is fair. Because the explicit job of an author is to climb inside the experience of LIFE, real or imagined, to tell compelling stories that reflect the incalculable diversity of detail, nuance, thought, and emotion of any variety of people, places, and things. And the creative mind can find and translate authenticity whether writing about Martians, coquettish teens, dogs who play poker, or characters who exactly mirror the author‘s gender or race.

I’ve had my own experience with this interesting conundrum: my last novel, Hysterical Love, was told through the first-person point-of-view of a thirty-three-year-old man, and it goes without saying: I’m not one of those. Yet I felt completely capable of infusing my story with authenticity by relying on my skills of observation, as well as my experiential knowledge as the sister of five men, the mother of a son, the wife of a man; my years on the road with rock bands, and the immersive research of being a close friend to many, many men throughout my life. I’ve been told I pulled it off, even by the men who’ve read it, so my conviction proved out.

But is the divide between cultures, races, wider than that of gender diversity? Does a white writer delegitimize their prose by including black characters? Is the reverse true?

I don’t think so. I think it depends on the writer, the quality of their work; the depth and sensitivity of their depictions. Those are my initial responses. But I also understand the question:

About two years ago I had an article up at HuffPost titled, “No, White People Will Never Understand the Black Experience,” a piece that became a flashpoint for much conversation on the topic of race. It was written in response to events of the time, particularly the egregious injustice of Sandra Bland’s arrest and subsequent (and inexplicable) jailhouse death, and the cacophony that arose amongst, amidst, and between parties on both sides of the racial divide as a result. My own thesis, my perspective on the tangible limitations we each have in perceiving and assessing the realities of life outside ourselves, is made clear by the title alone. But while there’s obviously much more to that debate, here and now we’re discussing the issue as it relates to the job of being an author and I have some specific thoughts on that.

Inspired by the many responses and conversations that ensued after the aforementioned article, as well as others written on the topic of racial conflict, bias, and injustice, I took one of the stories referenced, about an interracial couple’s experiences with police profiling, and developed it into a character-driven novel called A NICE WHITE GIRL, a title that reflects commentary made within some of the conversations I had.

This “sociopolitical love story” is told through the intertwining points-of-view of a black man and white woman dealing not only with pushback to their new and evolving relationship, but the ratcheting impact of police profiling that ultimately leads to a life-altering arrest. It’s a story that’s human, gut-wrenching, and honest, built on the foundation of my own experiences in a long-term interracial relationship earlier in my life, as well as journalistic research and interviews, personal interactions, even friendships with members of the black community. Given a commitment to creating the characters outside my demographic as authentically and sensitively as I possibly could, without watering them down or pandering to political correctness, I believe I served both my story and its cultural demands well. Did I?

Every author relies on, taps into; mines the wealth of thought, opinion, perspective, and acculturation of their own unique life experience. Certainly that’s true. But as artists, as observers and chroniclers of life by way of prose, we go beyond that pool of reference. We reach out, we expand; we explore plot lines and include characters that stretch our imagination, that dig deep into worlds, events and experiences, imagined or real, that can pull us onto less traveled roads that might demand the challenge of research, of specific observation, even outside consultation. We take these extra steps, even for fiction, because we want to infuse our work with inherent realness. Particularly when writing characters outside our culture. That was certainly the demand I faced when embarking upon this latest novel.

But I am a white woman who’s written a book with a black male character, inclusive of his mother, his sister, and various friends. I’ve depicted their family life, their interactions, relationships, thoughts and feelings. Do I not have the creative right to do that? Will I be seen as patronizing, insensitive, off base, and inappropriate? Will this make my book too controversial for representation, for publishing, for sale? Will it garner derision and disdain from members of the black community? Even members of the white community who may resent the harshness with which I depict some of the police?

I don’t know. Maybe. But it was a story I felt passionate about, compelled to write; that took the many debated aspects and elements discussed in my articles and put them into fictional form, with imagined characters who embodied and borrowed from people I knew, from conversations I’d had, from ideas, agendas, politics, and passions that had been conveyed to me by real people expressing essential and sometimes controversial perspectives. I was determined to honor them by candidly, honestly, and without apology, telling the story.

But perhaps, as Anthony Horowitz was told, I’m entering territory that is off-limits, that puts me at odds with those who might frame me as presumptuous and patronizing. “A nice white girl” who’s stepped outside of culturally acceptable boundaries.

I hope not, because I, like Mr. Horowitz, see that as “dangerous territory.”

Just as brilliant male authors have gorgeously written female protagonists; as female novelists have conjured male characters ringing with truth; as writers of one ethnicity have honestly depicted another; as fabulists have invented entire worlds of imagined wonders, authors must be limited byNOTHING. Not a thing. They must be free to create without fear of cultural naysaying, societal judgment, threat of reprisal, or the discomfort of crossing cultural boundaries.

The only mandate to which they’re obligated is GOOD WRITING. Writing with wit and clarity. Honesty. Authenticity. Sensitivity and depth. Engaging prose, compelling plots, and visceral emotion. And, if need be, if determined helpful, the use of “sensitivity readers” who can ascertain if the writer got the cultural references right.

But just as Idris Elba could certainly make magic as James Bond, as Anthony Horowitz could create an intriguing black spy for his books; as I can write characters both male and of a culture outside my own, so must every author of merit and worth be allowed to view the entire panoply of life as fuel for their imagination. Anything else is antithetical to the mission of art… and stymying art serves no one. Not the writer, not the reader, not the myriad members of our diverse world hungry for stories that reflect their lives. Art is imagining; creating, mirroring, and provoking… all of which can and must be achieved by artists free to explore without the limiting effect of creative and cultural boundaries.

Photo by Anete Lusina @ Unsplash

___________________________________________________________

Follow Lorraine Devon Wilke on Facebook, Twitter and Amazon. Details and links to her blog, photography, books, and music can be found at http://ift.tt/15Nf335.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Cher Makes Us ‘Believe’ At The Billboard Music Awards

The spirit of the late ‘90s was alive and well at the Billboard Music Awards on Sunday night. 

Shortly after Celine Dion sang her 1997 hit “My Heart Will Go On,” Cher killed it onstage with her 1998 No. 1 “Believe.” She then turned back time to 1989, performing “If I Could Turn Back Time,” in what appeared to be the same outfit from her legendary music video filmed aboard the USS Missouri.

Everyone was taken with Cher’s performance, even Dion: 

After her two powerhouse performances, Cher was presented with the Icon Award by Gwen Stefani. 

“So, I’ve wanted to do what I do since I was 4 years old, and I’ve been doing it for 53 years,” Cher said as the crowd broke out in applause. “That’s not an applause thing. I’m 71 yesterday. And I can do a 5-minute plank. OK? Just saying.”

She continued, “I want to thank my mom. When I was really young my mom said, ‘You’re not going to be the smartest, you’re not going to be the prettiest. You’re not going to be the most talented. But you’re going to be special. And then when I met Sonny [Bono], he said the same thing. And there was really nothing about me that lead anyone [else] to believe that I was going to be special.”

Cher wrapped up her speech by crediting a lot of her success to plain old luck.

“I work with people you might not know, but they are like the greatest people in our industry,” she told the crowd. “And I just have to say I think luck has so much to do with my success. I think it was mostly luck and a little bit of something thrown in.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Celine Dion Celebrates 20th Anniversary Of ‘My Heart Will Go On’ With Billboard Award Performance

Celine Dion looked and sounded like an angel ― complete with massive wings ― at the Billboard Music Awards on Sunday night as she performed her smash hit “My Heart Will Go On” from “Titanic” nearly 20 years after the film’s release. 

Dion, who wore a plunging white gown with huge sleeves, sang the ballad while a montage of scenes from the Oscar-winning movie, released in December 1997, played in the background. 

“This song means a lot to me, and it has played such a huge role in my career,” Dion said in a statement when it was announced earlier this month that she would perform the song at the awards. “I’m so grateful to the late James Horner, and to Will Jennings, for writing it and creating the opportunity for me to be part of ‘Titanic,’ an amazing film whose legacy will continue for generations to come.” 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

David S. Pumpkins Returned To ‘SNL’ And We Have Questions

When it comes to “Saturday Night Live” characters, David S. Pumpkins is one of the most bizarre and the most beloved in recent history. 

Played by Tom Hanks, the character ― a man in a pumpkin-print suit accompanied by two dancing skeletons ― was introduced to audiences when Hanks hosted “SNL” in October 2016. 

If you had any questions left unanswered, the return of Hanks as David S. Pumpkins or rather “David S. Pimpkins” in this case, you are unlikely to find them in this weekend’s “Rap Song,” which is a parody of overstuffed hip-hop collaborations.

Actually, we want to know what happened to Pumpkins’ two dancing skeletons. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Backpack Kid Upstaged Katy Perry On ‘SNL’ And Mesmerized The Internet

It takes a lot to upstage Katy Perry, but Backpack Kid managed to do it.

Perry, who channeled Beetlejuice in a black and white striped coat, performed “Swish Swish” ― which is thought to be a Taylor Swift diss track ― on the season finale of “Saturday Night Live” this weekend.

The pop star was flanked by drag queens on both sides of a runway, before she moved aside to let them do their thing. Then a star was born: 

Backpack Kid, as the people of Twitter dubbed him, stepped onto the runway and mesmerized the world with his backpack and the way he moved. (For the record, Backpack Kid’s real name is Russell Horning, he’s 15, and he’s on Instagram.)

People were delighted. They were in awe. They were confused. They had questions. They knew he stole the show.  

Will we see more of Backpack Kid? Time will tell. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

‘Bachelorette’ Contestant Criticized For Transphobic Reply To Dating Questionnaire

The Bachelorette” doesn’t officially kick off its 13th season until Monday night, but one of the 31 men vying for Rachel Lindsay’s love has already started off on the wrong foot.

ABC posted contestants’ bios to its website this week, and Bryce, a 30-year-old firefighter, has been criticized for how he responded to a certain question: What’s your biggest date fear?” 

“The chick is actually a dude,” Bryce responded, per The Wrap

The contestant invited swift backlash from the LGBTQ community, including comments from “Ru Paul’s Drag Race” alum Sharon Needles and transgender actress Jen Richards. 

ABC provided The Wrap with a statement denouncing Bryce’s answer. “This comment does not reflect the views of ABC, Warner Horizon or bachelorette Rachel Lindsay,” a representative stated. The network promptly removed the line from its website.

As Refinery29 points out, Bryce wasn’t the only contestant to display uninformed views about transgender people. Lucas, a man who lists his occupation as “whaboom,” stated that if he could have lunch with any one person, dead or alive, he’d choose Bruce Jenner (”dead”) and Caitlyn Jenner (”alive”). 

“Would be a very interesting convo,” Lucas said.

“Lucas is fetishizing the experience of a trans woman,” Refinery29’s R.A. Farley wrote. “I’d like to think that Lucas wants to talk to Caitlyn Jenner in an effort to understand the trans experience. But I can’t help but think that’s not the case.”

Those missteps aside, Season 13 of “The Bachelorette” has been praised for being the series’ most progressive yet, with a black bachelorette and a more diverse set of contestants than ever before. The series returns to ABC Monday at 9 p.m. ET.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Julie Andrews: I’ve ‘Just Always’ Been An LGBTQ Ally

For Julie Andrews, being a patron of the arts and an LGBTQ rights advocate go hand in hand. 

In a new interview with The Advocate, the legendary star of “Mary Poppins” and “The Sound of Music” credited her years of working in film and on stage for exposing her to diversity early on. When it comes to queer people specifically, Andrews said she’s “just always” been an ally. 

“Theater, anyway, is such an open community and free,” the Oscar winner said. She went on to note that she was “very aware of bias and bigotry” from a young age, but that she “was raised not to be that way and not to think that way.”

“It always seemed puzzling to me that the world wasn’t just embracing human beings. But it’s never been something that I stumbled on,” she said. “It’s just always been innate, thanks I think to the professions that I am in.” 

Andrews, 81, is back in the spotlight as the host of “Julie’s Greenroom,” a new Netflix series for children that explores different aspects of the performing arts. Her co-stars in the series are the “Greenies,” a cast of original puppets that were created by The Jim Henson Company. One of the “Greenies,” Riley, is depicted as a gender neutral character. “We tried to be as inclusive as we possibly could within the show,” Andrews, who created “Julie’s Greenroom” with her daughter, Emma Walton Hamilton, and Judy Rothman, said. 

In March, Andrews and Hamilton spoke out against President Donald Trump’s “mind-boggling” plan to cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts in an impassioned CNN editorial. True to form, the woman beloved by legions of fans for her iconic role as Maria von Trapp doubled down on that stance in the Advocate interview.

“There’s no doubt that [the arts] help people understand each other and they transcend all barriers, and I cannot think of anything more important,” Andrews said. As far as her suggestion for Trump’s apparent disregard for the arts is concerned, she said, “Talk to anybody that is passionate about them and listen and learn, because I cannot imagine a world without them.” 

For the latest in LGBTQ news, check out the Queer Voices newsletter. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Samantha Bee Reveals What Happens If You Read Ivanka Trump’s Book

Samantha Bee can’t get enough of Ivanka Trump’s new self-help book. Well, making fun of it at least.

In a recent “Full Frontal,” Bee went to great lengths to explain why she wouldn’t be reading Women Who Work: Rewriting The Rules again anytime soon.

Then on Friday, her show posted a 33-second video to YouTube which went even further ― by demonstrating what happened when one of its writers read the book from cover to cover. “It was not a good idea,” said the clip’s narrator.

Find out what went down in the clip above.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=591fda91e4b034684b0c9e2a,591e9325e4b094cdba52df46,591ead48e4b094cdba52f930,591ec9e5e4b03b485cb0adcf

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Fidget Spinners, What’s the Deal?

Fidget Spinners are driving teachers mad all over the country – much like the dreaded laser pointers from back in my day, although we didn’t try to claim therapeutic effects by way of the distracting red light. The Spinners are claiming to help with anxiety and ADHD, but the evidence is anecdotal at best and BS marketing at worst.

Child psychologists Dr. Dave Anderson, Scott Kollins, and Victoria Prooday have all said that there is no evidence that Fidget Spinners help with ADHD or anxiety, and instead serve as a distraction due to the instant gratification of the toy. In this light, it seems like the perfect toy for our time.

There are tried and tested methods that can help children with ADHD and anxiety relief and these entertainment toys should not be used as an excuse for kids to be disruptive in classrooms. Although, maybe they will help children develop their debating skills as they plead their cases to teachers across the country to keep their toy spinning on their desks. However, as Dr. Anderson notes, one positive about them is they have brought attention to the discussion about what CAN help anxiety and ADHD.

If you don’t understand why people are into spinning pieces of plastic all of a sudden, Michael McCrudden traces the Fidget Spinner’s history back to its 1997 origin in the video above. This is a trend that’s 20 years in the making.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.