Art For Art's Sake. But Whose Art? And Who's Art?

In entreating around looking for donations for the "Ballplayer" sculpture, Chuck Ross and I have encountered a very unexpected source of resistance.

Biscayne Park is a unique neighborhood, and it has a unique population.  Chuck and I have knocked on a lot of doors looking for donations, and we have been surprised with what frequency the person who lives in the home we visit declares that he or she, him- or herself, is an artist.

How fortuitous, Chuck and I initially imagined, to find a neighbor who, seemingly by definition, would be most understanding, most appreciative, and most sympathetic to our mission.  We would have expected to get the largest, or at least most enthusiastic, donations from artists.  If they're "starving artists," we would figure on any loose change the art-lover (art-creator!) could scrounge up.

Not one bit.  Oddly, we were the most unceremoniously rejected by artists who live here.  We almost never received a donation from an artist.  I say "almost," because one local artist did give us a very small donation, grudgingly, at the insistence of his wife, after he himself had refused.

So the question is, what gives?  How are these people, who should "get it" more than anyone else, so unwilling to participate in and contribute to public art here?  And not to pick on Barbara Watts (although why not?), but she, the self-proclaimed art historian, has also been almost unwavering in dismissing, demeaning, and rejecting public art in BP.  Sure, she seems to know nothing about any art that was not made in the XVth Century, but still, shouldn't she be sympathetic to the concept of expression through art, and public beautification through public display of art?  Maybe she has no feeling for any art that has not been declared a "masterpiece" by some expert.  It's not the trivial or modestly decorative XVth Century works that have survived for 600 years.  Does she think all art, or all legitimate and worthy art, is only grand?

Back to the question at hand, why are those who should be most sensitive, most appreciative, and most supportive the ones who are most dismissive, most demeaning, and least interested?  I'll tell you now, Chuck has no idea.  He was at a complete loss for an explanation.  I was thinking that maybe the driving factor is jealousy.  If the Village wants public art, and if Chuck and I are taking donations to acquire some, why didn't we approach our own local artists for public art?  What are they, chopped liver? 

Setting aside that we have no idea our neighbors are artists, unless they find a way to publicize the fact, I would count that complaint as a fair one.  A similar complaint is that seemingly, Chuck and I have chosen pieces for the neighborhood, and no one else was consulted.  That's not strictly true, but let's use it, too, as a focus of criticism. 

But here's the problem.  When an artist neighbor tells us he or she is an artist, we show great enthusiasm, and we ask them if they have something, or would like to produce something, the Village can buy from them or that they would like to donate to the Village.  We have had no takers, except a possible "I'll think about it" from the artist neighbor who gave the Village the small donation.  Similarly, when someone says they don't dislike the idea of public art, but they do dislike the pieces the Village has acquired, we always ask them to find something they do like, so they can take up their own collection, and we will help them.  It's like we're talking to ourselves.

By the same token, some resist the concept of public acquisition of art, suggesting instead that we accept public art on loan.  That way, we can benefit from it, and we don't have to buy it.  Great, Chuck and I say.  We're totally on board.  Frankly, I myself have worked somewhat hard to find loaned art, and I haven't succeeded.  I've spoken to artists, to galleries, and to artists' agents.  But I never said I was good at this.  I'm just eager and appreciative.  If someone else knows someone, or has a way to do this better than I have, please, by all means...!  Nope.  Nothin'.  Not from the artists, not from the alleged professional appreciators of art, not from the critics.

The fact is, we've already succeeded twice, and we're well on the way to succeeding a third time.  There's advance enthusiasm for a fourth piece (the Lueza), too.  The reason is that there are many more people who do get it, and who appreciate what this is about, than there are nay-sayers and resistors.  It's just unexpected, and curious, that there isn't more support, and the most enthusiastic support, from the people who, by virtue of their "day jobs," have declared themselves most deeply committed to art.