In “Unscripted,” my column, I wrote about the Charleston Arts Coalition, a new group of artists and arts supporters making the case for a community arts center — or, using the coalition’s language, “a unified center for the arts,” meaning all of them, including the performing arts. The group hosted a panel discussion last week called “Creative Spaces,” the most high-profile of a series of similar events that began in April.
I don’t think the coalition should focus on a building but instead on a organization that serves artists. But that’s beside the point here. If the Charleston Arts Coalition is serious about rallying widespread support for an egalitarian center for the arts, it needs to be mindful of appearances.
That is, the appearance of its organizational make-up. Who are the people involved in the effort? Why are they advocating for a very public, community-wide, and grass-roots push to establish a public-private initiative being called “A People’s Arts Center”? How can they speak for all of the arts when the group’s members are clearly involved in the visual arts?
The group has asked us for our attention, but it doesn’t seem ready for the scrutiny that comes with it. In other words, it has not gone far enough toward being open and transparent, aspects that come with a serious campaign for change. It has not gone far enough to enlist the help and participation of artists across the arts spectrum. If it fails to achieve these ends, the coalition can forget about gaining widespread support for its project.
The problems begin with its website: www.peoplesartcenter.com. There’s little in the way of information about who individual members are. You can only discern who writes for the website, names that curious parties can only presume are connected with the whole campaign. The authors are: “Stacy,” “Olivia,” “Megan Lange,” “SETH,” “brilliant,” “ASchenck,” “jarod.” Only two links lead to profile pages. None of the profile pages makes clear that in fact, among learning more about them, that some members appear personally invested in a new arts center.
The arts coalition will need to address this. And address it soon.
In the absence of clear and explicit information about the identities and backgrounds of individual members, the coalition runs the risk of appearing deceptive and, later, when the facts of the matter emerge about who they are, appearing to maintain conflicts of interest.
What coalition members also must address is the appearance of personal investments being at stake in a successful future for the visual arts in Charleston, in particular in finding a new venue for Redux Contemporary Art Center, a venue threatened by the loss of its lease at the end of 2009.
I should emphasize two things here.
One is that I’m talking about appearances, not reality. In fact, the Charleston Arts Coalition’s website is a mess and was probably not conceived to provide what’s needed to be open and transparent, i.e., full disclosure and background information that would elicit the proper level of trust in a campaign that claims to be aimed at the universal good. Bottom-line is this: Right now, the group just appears lazy (i.e., not being clear about things), but over time that will change. Eventually, it needs to be upfront about who they are and what they want to accomplish in order to avoid the appearance of deception. Again, trust is vital.
The other thing is that the coalition can change this simply by seeking out participants who are across the arts spectrum. They cannot continue to speak for all the arts when their backgrounds and resumes suggest they firmly stand on the side of visual arts. It has been said by coalition members that anyone can participate in organizing the panel discussions, but this is a cop-out. If the coalition is serious about rallying support for a people’s arts center, it needs to actively enlist dancers, singers, actors as well as real estate developers, lawyers, doctors, and philanthropists.
Jonathan Brilliant
Former teacher and former artist-in-residence at Redux Contemporary Art Center. He currently holds a membership to Redux. Brilliant is the lead figure in the Charleston Arts Coalition and served as a panelist during last week’s “Creative Spaces” panel discussion at Theatre 99.
He and Megan Lange, of Robert Lange Studios, were the only members to put their names on the press release announcing the “Creative Spaces” event. This seems to be a borderline conflict of interest. As a member and close associate of Redux, a center in search of a new home, Brilliant may have a credibility problem as he makes the case for a “People’s Arts Center.”
UPDATE: Brilliant called to say that he does not speak on behalf on Redux.
Jarod Charzewski
A current board member of Redux Contemporary Art and faculty member at the College of Charleston. He commented on a recent post of mine that was critical of the Charleston Arts Coalition but did not disclose his involvement with the group. Neither did he reveal that he serves on Redux’s board. Charzewski’s interests are twofold: building a new arts center that’s for “the people” and in finding a new home for Redux, an arts center that’s about to lose its lease by the end of 2009. If this is not a conflict of interest, it’s close, as observers may wonder which interest — Redux’s or the people’s — Charzewski serves.
Olivia Pool
The publisher of ART Magazine and visual arts writer for The Post and Courier. She wrote a piece for the paper about the Charleston Arts Coalition’s panel discussion at Theatre 99 last week. The piece contains passages identical to the press release. Pool did not disclose her involvement with the coalition.
She also sent an email to me recommending that I attend “Creative Spaces,” but did not reveal her role in organizing the panel discussion. This omission suggests that she was independently endorsing the event as the editor of ART Magazine, not as a person invested in its success.
Pool’s role is a clear journalistic conflict of interest. Her editors at the P&C should never have let her write about an organization and event that she was involved in. One minor point: She should not have used passages that were identical to the press releases. I wouldn’t call it plagiarism, but I wouldn’t call it good writing either.
Megan Lange and Andrea Schenck
Lange is co-owner of Robert Lange Studios. Schenck owns Plum Elements, an arts and crafts boutique. Each sent emails (here and here) urging readers to attend the panel discussion, but neither disclosed her relationship with the coalition in the email (Lange did in the official press release), giving the impression they were lending their weight as gallery owners to the cause.
Their stature in the community rests on their authority as visual arts advocates. The Charleston Arts Coalition has given lip service to being a cross-disciplinary group aiming for an arts center that includes the performing arts. But this interest in inclusion appears in conflict with Lange’s and Schenck’s (and Brilliant’s and Pool’s and Charzewski’s) interest in the visual arts. The coalition, once again, needs to take steps in spanning what appears to be a sizable credibility gap.
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.