Tag Archives: culture

Who Knew? Arts Education Fuels the Economy – The Chronicle of Higher Education



Leave a comment

Filed under Spotlights

10 Reasons Why Handheld Devices Should Be Banned for Children Under the Age of 12

This is ridiculous. Okay, yeah, kids should not be spending a lot of time watching mindless tv shows and playing mindless games. But what about toddlers that use laptops, iPads, iPhones, and the like to skype/face time with family? What about the Leap Frog games? What about Reading Rainbow and Mister Rogers? You can’t just ban all technology. I can’t believe that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Society of Pediatrics would ignore the fact that there are useful and educational technologies out there for infants and children.

What about using technology, specifically hand-held devices, for creative endeavors such as music and art? 

I guess why this annoys me so much is because I hate the concept of “banning” anything. People, and families, should be encouraged to learn the facts and make their own decisions. But when the “bans” are coming from supposedly reputable organizations like the ones below, then there’s a high chance of concerned families imposing “bans” without thoroughly considering the situation thoroughly. 

And, yes, while I understand the need to be “better safe than sorry,” I am all for opening up the world for exploration for children. The more access they have to people, culture, and knowledge, the better. And more often than not these days, people, culture, and knowledge come from iPads, iPhones, and the like.

That’s like if, back in the day, they banned toddlers from listening to a-tracks or records as a mode of consuming music and culture. Or if they banned books. Music often comes from the internet these days, as do books in the form of e-books on Kindles and the like.

Laptops, iPads, e-readers, etc. are just the new forms of technology used to connect with the world outside the home.




10 Reasons Why Handheld Devices Should Be Banned for Children Under the Age of 12

Posted: 03/06/2014 3:35 pm EST Updated: 03/09/2014 3:59 pm EDT

by Cris Rowan 

“The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Society of Pediatrics state infants aged 0-2 years should not have any exposure to technology, 3-5 years be restricted to one hour per day, and 6-18 years restricted to 2 hours per day (AAP 2001/13, CPS 2010). Children and youth use 4-5 times the recommended amount of technology, with serious and often life threatening consequences (Kaiser Foundation 2010, Active Healthy Kids Canada 2012). Handheld devices (cell phones, tablets, electronic games) have dramatically increased the accessibility and usage of technology, especially by very young children (Common Sense Media, 2013). As a pediatric occupational therapist, I’m calling on parents, teachers and governments to ban the use of all handheld devices for children under the age of 12 years. Following are 10 research-based reasons for this ban. Please visit zonein.ca to view the Zone’in Fact Sheet for referenced research.

1. Rapid brain growth
Between 0 and 2 years, infant’s brains triple in size, and continue in a state of rapid development to 21 years of age (Christakis 2011). Early brain development is determined by environmental stimuli, or lack thereof. Stimulation to a developing brain caused by overexposure to technologies (cell phones, internet, iPads, TV), has been shown to be associated with executive functioning and attention deficit, cognitive delays, impaired learning, increased impulsivity and decreased ability to self-regulate, e.g. tantrums (Small 2008, Pagini 2010).

2. Delayed Development
Technology use restricts movement, which can result in delayed development. One in three children now enter school developmentally delayed, negatively impacting literacy and academic achievement (HELP EDI Maps 2013). Movement enhances attention and learning ability (Ratey 2008). Use of technology under the age of 12 years is detrimental to child development and learning (Rowan 2010).

3. Epidemic Obesity
TV and video game use correlates with increased obesity (Tremblay 2005). Children who are allowed a device in their bedrooms have 30% increased incidence of obesity (Feng 2011). One in four Canadian, and one in three U.S. children are obese (Tremblay 2011). 30% of children with obesity will develop diabetes, and obese individuals are at higher risk for early stroke and heart attack, gravely shortening life expectancy (Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2010). Largely due to obesity, 21st century children may be the first generation many of whom will not outlive their parents (Professor Andrew Prentice, BBC News 2002).

4. Sleep Deprivation
60% of parents do not supervise their child’s technology usage, and 75% of children are allowed technology in their bedrooms (Kaiser Foundation 2010). 75% of children aged 9 and 10 years are sleep deprived to the extent that their grades are detrimentally impacted (Boston College 2012).

5. Mental Illness 
Technology overuse is implicated as a causal factor in rising rates of child depression, anxiety, attachment disorder, attention deficit, autism, bipolar disorder, psychosis and problematic child behavior (Bristol University 2010Mentzoni 2011Shin 2011,Liberatore 2011, Robinson 2008). One in six Canadian children have a diagnosed mental illness, many of whom are on dangerous psychotropic medication (Waddell 2007).

6. Aggression 
Violent media content can cause child aggression (Anderson, 2007). Young children are increasingly exposed to rising incidence of physical and sexual violence in today’s media. “Grand Theft Auto V” portrays explicit sex, murder, rape, torture and mutilation, as do many movies and TV shows. The U.S. has categorized media violence as a Public Health Risk due to causal impact on child aggression (Huesmann 2007). Media reports increased use of restraints and seclusion rooms with children who exhibit uncontrolled aggression.

7. Digital dementia
High speed media content can contribute to attention deficit, as well as decreased concentration and memory, due to the brain pruning neuronal tracks to the frontal cortex (Christakis 2004, Small 2008). Children who can’t pay attention can’t learn.

8. Addictions
As parents attach more and more to technology, they are detaching from their children. In the absence of parental attachment, detached children can attach to devices, which can result in addiction (Rowan 2010). One in 11 children aged 8-18 years are addicted to technology (Gentile 2009).

9. Radiation emission
In May of 2011, the World Health Organization classified cell phones (and other wireless devices) as a category 2B risk (possible carcinogen) due to radiation emission (WHO 2011). James McNamee with Health Canada in October of 2011 issued a cautionary warning stating “Children are more sensitive to a variety of agents than adults as their brains and immune systems are still developing, so you can’t say the risk would be equal for a small adult as for a child.” (Globe and Mail 2011). In December, 2013 Dr. Anthony Miller from the University of Toronto’s School of Public Health recommend that based on new research, radio frequency exposure should be reclassified as a 2A (probable carcinogen), not a 2B (possible carcinogen). American Academy of Pediatrics requested review of EMF radiation emissions from technology devices, citing three reasons regarding impact on children (AAP 2013).

10. Unsustainable
The ways in which children are raised and educated with technology are no longer sustainable (Rowan 2010). Children are our future, but there is no future for children who overuse technology. A team-based approach is necessary and urgent in order to reduce the use of technology by children. Please reference below slide shows onwww.zonein.ca under “videos” to share with others who are concerned about technology overuse by children.

Problems – Suffer the Children – 4 minutes
Solutions – Balanced Technology Management – 7 minutes

The following Technology Use Guidelines for children and youth were developed by Cris Rowan, pediatric occupational therapist and author of Virtual Child; Dr. Andrew Doan, neuroscientist and author of Hooked on Games; and Dr. Hilarie Cash, Director of reSTART Internet Addiction Recovery Program and author of Video Games and Your Kids, with contribution from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Pediatric Society in an effort to ensure sustainable futures for all children.

Technology Use Guidelines for Children and Youth


Please contact Cris Rowan at info@zonein.ca for additional information. © Zone’in February”

Leave a comment

by | March 10, 2014 · 5:26 pm

Thoughts on Life and Art

I’ve had a lot of time to think in the past couple months, mostly due to my general unemployed-ness (I’ve been picking up a few odd part times jobs here and there to pay the bills, of course, but I mostly consider myself unemployed).

And one thing, among many, that I can’t help but notice is the apparent continuation of the contemporary trend I wrote my thesis* on: western society’s overwhelming transfiguration of “the other.” Or, in more simple terms, our glorification of, adoption of outward form and appearance of, and transformation and attempt to constructively collaborate with “the other” (aka other ethnicities, other genders, other sexual orientations, and so on and so forth).

This trend first developed in the world of “high art” as a response to the deconstructive-ness of postmodernism. Postmodern artists deconstructed the hierarchical western canon, claiming, for example, “Hey! Black and women artists are just as important as those old white guys!”

But once the canon was turned upside down, artists were left feeling a bit lost. It’s like emerging from a bomb shelter after a nuclear war and realizing that all is chaos. Thus, artists started returning to the basics, the building blocks of how living things interpret and experience their environments.

This caused artists in the 60s and 70s, for example, to start exploring the five senses and performance art; how the audience directly experiences a piece of art.

Some artists have started to glorify and exalt “the other,” effectively starting the transfiguration movement. One more contemporary, popular culture example of this is the 2004 film version of Phantom of the Opera with Gerard Butler as the Phantom.

In the 1909 book, the Phantom is an ugly, terrifying creature. In the 1925 film and the 1976 musical, he is human, but remarkably deformed. In the 2004 film, he is a downright sex object. He is viewed as a valid romantic interest for Christine and we, as the audience, are encouraged to empathize with him.

Other artists glorified the imperfect human body since the western canon had previously only accepted the idealized human body The imperfect human body, here, is considered “the other” simply because it had been previously ignored or sugar-coated in art. This includes artists like Jenny Saville and Kiki Smith (see below images).


High-res →

Jenny Saville – Hem
oil on canvas – 1998-1999


“Semen” — part of “Untitled”, Kiki Smith, 1987-90.

In the second phase of the transfiguration movement, artists wish to change their own outward form and appearance to adopt the appearance of “the other.” This includes artists like Coco Fusco and Guillermo Gomez-Pena (see below image.)

But this phase also includes more contemporary artists like Iggy Azalea and Lady Gaga when they dress in Middle Eastern and Indian garb (see below images).

Some would argue that the above artists are involved in cultural festishization, but that is a discussion for another time.

In the third phase, artists wish to transform global perspectives and encourage constructive collaboration across cultures. They do this in a variety of ways, some involve the audience in the artwork giving the spectators the chance to become the art-makers (performance art) and some attempt to understand the world from “the other’s” perspective.

Take the picture above, for example, that is a perfect example of the internet’s response to the infamous Shark Week. We are encouraged to place ourselves in the shark’s position, an animal typically feared or “other-ed.” But instead of fearing the shark, we empathize with it.

This phase is also evident in recent Disney movies like Finding Nemo and Shrek. No longer are sharks and orges scary monsters, but relatable protagonists.




This transfiguration movement is not just cultural, either, it has extended into politics and society at large. It is seen in the LGBT movement, the movement to accept those with mental, emotional, and physical disabilities, and, in the popular culture world, the hipster movement; it is now hip to be geek.

I see instances of contemporary transfiguration every day, and every time I see one, I want to scream out “There! Look, people!” Because art is no longer separate from culture. And culture is no longer separate from politics and societal movements.

I now use Tumblr and Facebook as my primary news sources, with a little New York Times and NPR thrown in for fact-checking. I no longer need to subscribe to fashion magazines because it’s all here.

That is what makes the regulation of the internet so troubling for some. How can we control the flow of knowledge and information if everything is available to all? Who can hold power?

That is exactly why I’m excited and scared by the future at the same time.

At this moment, actually, I’m staring at the Tumblr-suggested post to the right of my screen (if I can, I will reblog it once I finish this post, but I can also describe it for you guys just in case).

It’s a drawing of a computer (laptop?) and emerging from the screen, breaking the fourth wall as we call it in theater, are three raised fists. One is white, one is yellow, and one is green. And there are two sets of three “action” lines on either side of the hands. I see these as the hands of people around the world, sharing, learning, collaborating, and exalting through the computer, the internet.

I think I read somewhere that recently some organization gave a bunch of laptops to a poverty-stricken town in a third world country in Africa. They rigged the laptops so that they had limited capabilities for the people in the town, so that the people “would use them for the right reasons.” The people received these laptops, the first computers they’ve seen in their life, and within hours they had hacked into them and deleted all the restrictions the organization had programmed into them.

That is exactly what people in power are afraid of: giving the oppressed, the poor, the uneducated unlimited access to the information of the world.

I realize this post has veered off course, if this were an academic paper I would be agonizing over how the fuck I was going to conclude this in any logical way. But, hey, I just wanted to get my thoughts out of my mind and this is what happened.

Call it art. Call it bullshit. Call it what you will.

Welcome to Claire’s (unemployed) mind.

*thesis can be found at: https://www.academia.edu/1504353/Contemporary_Post-postmodernism_Transfiguring_the_Imperfect_Human_Body

1 Comment

by | August 8, 2013 · 9:35 pm

Aaron Betsky Is Building a New Art Museum. Aaron Betsky Is Destroying the Old Art Museum. Discuss.

“In his attempts to give the Cincinnati Art Museum a new image, Aaron Betsky has sparked an aesthetic battle royal—and unleashed a torrent of criticism that gets to the heart of public art, private money, and the still touchy politics of identity.

RJ Smith


Editor’s Note: Benedict Leca’s title was misstated in the original version of this story. He is currently serving as curatorial consultant for the Art Gallery of Hamilton. The correction has been made below.



Numerous factors affect the speed and accuracy of a .30-caliber bullet sailing through the Cincinnati Art Museum.

Air currents: negligible

Barometric pressure: stable

Museum director: unpredictable

No factor may determine the size of the hole left behind, and the accuracy of the aim, as much as the temperature of the man in charge.

The scene: a different kind of by-invitation-only event one Monday night last October. Present: an expert marksman, artist Todd Pavlisko, and director Aaron Betsky. Also present: a representative from the museum’s insurance company and a Cincinnati police officer. All are gathered to witness Crown, an artwork conceived by Pavlisko. The rifleman will fire a shot down the length of the Schmidlapp Gallery—the museum’s central hall—aiming at a target approximately 100 feet away. High speed photographic equipment will record the event for use in a video installation.

Sounds simple enough, except Crown caused a large-bore ruckus when it was announced last year. Critics were miffed that a rifle was being fired in close proximity to priceless objects. (The museum assured all concerned that the bullet would never be closer than 12 feet to the art.) City Hall weighed in, as did The Huffington Post. Through it all Betsky insisted the museum not only had the right to proceed but that it was important to do so.

And so the trigger was pulled. The bullet zipped through time, space, and the Schmidlapp Gallery, its shockwaves reverberating off of the prone body of an adult male mummified in Egypt sometime before the birth of Christ, Frank Duveneck’s The Whistling Boy, and an 18th century French commode before crossing into the Great Hall, where it was intercepted by a 24-inch-thick cube of cast brass, the force of its impact pushing out rings of metal in the shape of a king’s hat. With Crown, it was as if Betsky was making a swashbuckling declaration about the museum collection—heck, about the whole history of art—questioning its sanctity, its pretentions to permanence. Gainsborough. Warhol. A Cycladic idol. What is any of it worth, in an era of speed and shock?

When the moment was over, the reverberations continued. Crown was lamented in a letter to The Enquirer. After the Newtown massacre in December, some complained that it was in bad taste, a glorification of guns in what should be a sacred space.

The director has a quarrel. He is sitting in a small glass cube of a meeting room, in the recently redesigned Art Academy building, recalling the hubbub five months after the event. “It’s nice to see how many people care about our collection,” he says, smiling. “And to see that people from whom you don’t expect it have concerns about issues of gun violence. We think that the care and preservation of our collection is of course of paramount importance, but we have an educational mission too, and hope that by looking at our collection it can inform an understanding about our current debate and reality. Art helps you understand where we’ve come from, where we are, and where we’re going.”

So: Where are we? The finished video was scheduled to go on view in May, but after the criticism continued, Betsky quietly pulled it from the calendar. When asked, he was vague about whether anyone will ever see it, saying he was unhappy with the quality of the video art work. (For his part, Pavlisko blames “shortsighted…leadership on the hill” for cancelling his work.)

The staging of Crown comes as a small but fired-up cluster of folks with money and the luxury of time are watching every move Betsky makes, probing for mistakes, working to depose a director they can’t abide. They blame him for a string of high-profile departures from the museum staff, including a beloved and successful curator. Last summer, that curator’s exit precipitated a protest inside the museum and an unheard of attempt to contest the handpicked slate of candidates for the board of trustees.

“There’s a group of people in this town who are frightened of change and ignorant of how an art museum works,” says Betsky. “They will use any opportunity they can to resist the improvement I think we are making to this museum and this community.”

The director can be challenging, sometimes even flip; he wants to entertain. And for the past six years he has led a 127-year-old institution, one that was long run by and for a handful of wealthy Cincinnatians who expressed their love for their city by sharing their good fortune with the masses. Only, the community they loved increasingly does not match the Cincinnati that surrounds the museum on the hill. You can look through the end of a telescopic lens and still find it, but from Betsky’s perspective it’s sailing, like a bullet, faster and faster away.

He has a killer smile. He’s perfected the Euro micro-stubble and rocks a purple tie. He speaks quickly in full, polished sentences and paragraphs. He lives in a snazzy modernist house in Clifton designed by the architect Carl Strauss. His husband, the artist Peter Haberkorn, has filled the home with sculpture made from found taxidermed objects. Aaron Betsky is bold, confident, and very well put together. So how did he end up here?

Seymour Betsky, his father, was a Bronx-born, Harvard-educated literary scholar and critic who knew Saul Bellow and Ernest Hemingway. Sarah Zweig Betsky, his mother, came from a radical Detroit family and was a painter and professor of literature. Aaron was born in 1958 in Missoula, Montana, where his parents taught at the University of Montana. After they were invited to teach in the Netherlands in the early ’60s, he grew up in a suburb of Utrecht. A Yale education brought him back to the states, where he remained to study architecture as a graduate student. By the early 1980s, he was looking for work when an invitation arrived. Would he like to come to the University of Cincinnati’s College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning to teach?

While he taught students about interior design and theory, Cincinnati taught him about America. It was not the easiest place to be a gay Jewish man. “The city between 1983, when I first arrived, and 2006, when I came to the museum, is like night and day,” he says. “I would say that I have not encountered any overt discrimination or, uh, problem with either my sexuality or cultural background. Are there undertones? Absolutely. Is this still in many ways a divided city? Yes, in many ways.”

Every few months Betsky would talk with his friend Frank Gehry. Gehry would ask when he was going to stop all this teaching foolishness and get down to making architecture. When are you going to hire me? Betsky retorted. When a job was finally extended, he loaded up his brown Colt and headed for Southern California. For two years he worked in Gehry’s office, watching as the architect’s reputation corkscrewed through the roof. He wrote his first book, on architect James Gamble Rogers (who designed the landmark Laurel Court in College Hill), and took a job with another up-and-coming Los Angeles firm, Hodgetts + Fung Design Associates.

He also began writing a stream of pieces of architecture and design criticism for newspapers, magazines, and journals. They reached past standard ideas about what architecture was and made slashing statements that a more cautious critic might have abstained from.

Craig Hodgetts, a partner in the firm that hired Betsky in 1987, remembers one essay in particular. “There was a big cutout billboard of the Marlboro Man [on] Sunset Boulevard, where you entered the Sunset Strip,” he said. “Well, Aaron kind of broke precedent on what an architectural critic is supposed to be [and] wrote a marvelously lyrical piece about the Marlboro Man as a landmark. One usually thinks of landmarks as buildings with great value, great historical endurance. And he, in the tradition of Reyner Banham or the Venturis [Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown], was talking about the real urban fabric of Los Angeles, which very few have ever understood. Aaron got it. He was an important voice out here at that time.

“His passion was architecture and he was trained as an architect,” Hodgetts adds. “But I would say his interest in revealing what’s behind the facade of culture overwhelms his sensibility. He’s got a crowbar, prying those bits of masonry up to see what’s under them. He’s always doing that. And I would say, like most more or less radical sensibilities, which I truly believe he has, he hasn’t endeared himself to the powers that be.”

Later Betsky would say that in L.A. he realized he was “probably going to be a failed architect.” Instead, he found his first calling: as a smart, flexible critic. When the director of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art offered him the title of Curator of Architecture and Design in 1995, he took it.

The ’90s saw museums increasingly eager to redefine themselves in the interest of maintaining revenue. Blockbuster shows might work for institutions with blockbuster budgets, but another approach was to connect with daily life in ways museums hadn’t much tried to in the past. A curator with a feel for life outside the museum walls had a chance to draw new patrons in. In San Francisco, Betsky made the provocative decision to deemphasize architectural plans and models, and looked for visually stronger ways to exhibit architectural ideas. One groundbreaking design exhibition focused on sneakers as functional art.

He also continued to write, teach, and speak on the side. “We’d go, ‘Jeez Aaron, aren’t you working for us?’” jokes John Weber, former Curator of Education and Public Programs at SFMOMA. “But he was getting tons done for us. He just has so many things going on all at once.” Betsky was known for upgrading his seat on a plane to business class when he was doing museum business. His justification? “If you are in business class you can actually get a lot of business done.”

“Aaron is a very positive guy,” Weber adds. “He’s a very upbeat guy who in my experience always played well with others. He could have sharp opinions but he’s not a negative naysayer. He looks for interesting opportunities. And I think that’s a great mentality to have if you’re leading a public institution. In terms of the academic background part of it—I don’t think you need a PhD, but I wouldn’t hold it against anybody who had one.”

Owen Findsen, former art critic for the Enquirer, sees a historical process at work in recent museum events. “In the late ’90s, there was a big trend for museums to have new wings,” he says. “The deal was, a director would be urged by his board to come up with a new plan. Then he would propose a plan, and then move on to the next museum to carry out the plan they had.” Example: Anita Ellis, acting director of CAM in 1999, first envisioned the Cincinnati Wing, devoted to art from the city; then Timothy Rub came along to cut the ribbon. Rub proposed a sweeping “20-year plan” that would transform the museum footprint—building a new entrance, tearing down the old Art Academy building, constructing a whole new wing. Then in 2006, the Cleveland Museum of Art called—they were in the middle of building something far bigger—and Rub headed north. He has since become the director of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and is in the process of finishing up their $500 million building plan. Findsen calls it “the five-year hopscotch.”

Betsky was in his sixth year as director of the Netherlands Architecture Institute, an archive and museum in Rotterdam, when he was approached about taking over where Rub left off. It made sense, from certain angles. Here was a man who knew architecture and knew Cincinnati. Indeed, he served as a professional advisor to the committee that picked Zaha Hadid to build the Contemporary Arts Center, and had met some of the key players in the city’s art scene. But Betsky was succeeding a very popular director. “I’d hear all the ladies saying, ‘Oh, he’s just beautiful,’” Findsen laughs. “[Rub] was just the most charming person in the world. And nobody’s gonna follow that.”

Upon arrival, Betsky was charged with proceeding on an ambitious building project, and then…“The economy collapses and nobody’s giving any money anymore,” says Findsen. “That means that he is no longer the right man in the right place, nor does he have the funding to do a lot of spectacular contemporary shows. He is sort of in the middle.”

Findsen puts a very fine point on it. “This is a town where if you didn’t go to kindergarten here, you’re a newcomer,” he says. “You’ve got to know the players. You just don’t know who has the millions. That has a great deal to do with it. I don’t think Betsky is in a place where he can look good to anybody.”

One thing uniting the murmuration of Betsky critics is their confidence. Many seem certain that it’s not a matter of if  but when he goes. They point to the fact that he has been working on a month-to-month contract since his initial three-year agreement expired. (Betsky says he’s comfortable with the arrangement, and George Vincent, the chairman of CAM’s board of trustees, says there’s nothing unusual about it in the nonprofit world.)

The detractors come from all walks of art life—employees within the museum, former employees, donors, ex-trustees, shareholders—and their tapestry of grievances is long and many-colored. They complain that Betsky has a temper. That he surrounds himself with sycophants. That he does not have a PhD in art history. That his writing is superficial and would never stand up to an academic peer review. Some note with alarm that he is too interested in art produced within his lifetime. “We have a contemporary art museum,” says Mary Ran of the Mary Ran Gallery. “They have great parties. They have a great gift shop. But nobody goes to their exhibitions!” The people of Cincinnati, Ran explains, “don’t want to sit and look at negative art with negative energy.”

The list goes on. They hate the Pinocchio statue that stands at the front door of the museum. They hate the black fringe curtains that now hang in the Schmidlapp Gallery (some compare it to a tango dress). They hate that he used to park his car in his assigned slot even when he was out of town, just to make it look like he was hard at work. Once he realized the staff had noticed, they say, he retaliated by doing away with assigned parking. (Betsky claims he got rid of assigned parking because it was too much of a meritocratic hassle.)

“I sized him up pretty quick when I looked at the museum and saw the little red signs by the baseboards outside the restrooms,” said Stanley Cohen, a former donor. The offense: too cheeky, apparently. Since then, Cohen has stopped giving money or art to the museum.

Betsky notes the board had a complete understanding of his résumé when they hired him, and that they hired him because of it. “I believe my background, knowledge, and skills have allowed me to contribute in ways other people maybe would not be able to,” he says. “Yes I have an unconventional background for a museum director. But it’s also becoming less and less clear what a conventional background is.

“The art museum has changed over the last six years,” he adds. “We have honored and extended our superb collection and have an active program that addresses a wide variety of constituencies. We are able to invest in people and capital, and this place has become better. Now, that has meant making some changes, from trivial things like programming and imagery to things like buildings. There are some people who believe any change, big or small, must not happen.”

Change is hard, but sometimes sociocultural change is a little harder in Cincinnati. Don the hazmat suits, it’s the crisis of modernity! The dissent burst into the open last April, when the museum announced that Benedict Leca, curator of European painting, sculpture, and drawings, was leaving to become curatorial consultant for the Art Gallery of Hamilton, Ontario. Leca is in some ways the reverse image of Betsky. He was born in Casablanca and grew up in France and Texas. He’s got the PhD in art history. Where Betsky sometimes can’t help but show how hard he’s working, things seemed to come more easily to Leca. He brought dazzling, ambitious, and successful exhibitions of Gainsborough, Rembrandt, and Monet that boosted attendance figures. On the eve of his departure, a group of protesters occupied his Monet exhibit, unfurling a banner that declared their disbelief. No wonder the Enquirercalled him a “rock star curator.”

“Men and women both had crushes on Benedict,” says Jennifer Arbaugh, a former volunteer. “He lights up the room.”

Leca was good at raising money for the museum, and he wasn’t shy about making it known. Having procured a $67,000 check from a donor that made the Monet exhibition catalog possible, Leca once walked into a weekly development meeting, tossed the check into the air, and watched as others quickly bent to pick it up. It couldn’t have helped their relationship when Leca, having received the job offer from Ontario, requested a promotion and Betsky demurred. Supporters of his, led by the industrialist Carl Bimel, then raised $2 million to give Leca an endowed chair at the museum. It was a provocative move, and possibly one that sealed his fate. Some on the board have suggested that Bimel’s offer was mere talk, but a funny thing happened after the museum left the money on the table: In May 2012, Bimel made a $2 million contribution to the Purdue University football program.

Leca has not been the only museum star to leave. Chief Curator James Crump announced his exit shortly after mounting the career-spanning exhibit of photographer James Welling in February. Chief Conservator Per Knutås and others have also left. The director says it is all normal art world transit.

“Look, Benedict Leca came here as a very ambitious young man and did fantastic work, but was very impatient and driven and made it clear almost from the beginning that he had his sights set somewhere else,” says Betsky. “That’s what good curators do. They do great projects and if you’re lucky they stick around. But in a way, also if you’re lucky, they move on and make you proud.”

A painting acquired by the Cincinnati Art Museum last year: Frederic Remington’s A Map in the Sandfrom 1905. A party of dusty cowboys in the Old West has been drifting on the plains for a dangerously long time. They stop to approach a stranger who knows the lay of the land. Their horses point in all directions. The stranger, an Indian, draws a map in the dirt. Perhaps this is salvation, or perhaps something else. It’s hard to know, as the sun beats down.

Some of Betsky’s critics are like the cowboys in this picture. They’ve been at it a long time, so long the way forward is unknowable. Is this a circle or a straight line? As I started calling known critics for this story, I began to get an unusual stream of anonymous e-mails and letters. The general tone was one of extreme (at times verging on paranoid) concern: Did I know what would happen to me if I reported the truth of the museum? Was I prepared to be socially ostracized and have the magazine attacked? Did they get to you? One critic even urged me to “follow the money.” At last, I had my own Deep Throat.

The manic pitch obscures reasonable criticisms. Betsky is involved in a lot of extracurricular activities. He has taught at DAAP. He travels around the world giving talks, and has consulted on the design of Skolkovo, a “city of science and arts” planned outside of Moscow. He continues to write, including a blog for Architect magazine. “I am extremely careful to always be sure that my primary obligation and interest is the art museum,” he told me. “And I like to think—and can show—that my lecturing and teaching and writing has extended my effectiveness and the art museum’s visibility and effectiveness.” Since the economic collapse of 2008, he says he has stopped using his museum travel fund and has found other sources to pay for travel.

It’s a job all but defined by fund-raising these days, and inevitably somebody who is off lecturing is going to hear that they aren’t reaping enough money. In 2010, the trustees brought in David Linnenberg to take the lead in fund-raising. The critics like him about as much as Betsky—they see him as the board’s cat’s-paw, reporting back what goes on inside the museum to those who control the purse strings. They also suggest he is waiting on deck, should Betsky jump or get pushed.

Linnenberg reportedly has his own brand of swagger. When he was promoted to chief administrative officer he addressed a staff meeting of about 200. “We’ve got to get Aaron out,” Linnenberg announced—pausing for effect, grinning at the way “out” might be perceived—“into the community more.” According to one employee who was present, “Everybody looked at each other in amazement.”

“Dear God—for real?” says Linnenberg. He points out that he and Betsky work together well, and that it was Betsky who promoted him. “I want to get Aaron out into the community the way [zoo director] Thane Maynard is,” he clarifies. “Not out of Cincinnati.”

Betsky also seems to have the support of the board. “I think he does a nice job of balancing the many demands of his job,” says chairman George Vincent. “We’ve run a surplus every year for the last five years. And the endowment is at a record level in a very difficult economic time. Expenses were cut, exhibitions were right-sized to make them profitable, and we worked hard to bring up attendance.” Last year the museum had its third highest attendance number ever: 295,661.

But a big reason the museum can say it is doing well is that it has not been spending or growing like comparable institutions. Betsky sees his peers as museums in metropolitan areas with roughly 2 million inhabitants—Kansas City, St. Louis, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis. But Cleveland is finishing up a mammoth renovation that predates the economic downturn and will cost out at $350 million. St. Louis more recently announced a $162 million project. Even in Louisville, the Speed Art Museum has raised just north of $42 million for a $79 million project. Compared to that, the touted $11 million renovation of the old Art Academy building does not seem so grand. Success here is predicated on cutbacks, layoffs, and carefully watched expenditures.

Betsky explains the difficulties by saying the entire history of the museum has been one of reliance on a small set of big buck donors who are giving about as much now as they always have. Among the patrons the museum relies on, however, a number have become discouraged. “Some people think it doesn’t matter [that donors are bailing out],” one former board member says. “‘We’ll just keep getting new donors.’” He sees that as a poor way to plan for the future of the institution, and in his opinion Betsky is “totally incapable of raising money and never really has.”

In Betsky’s first year, the Rieveschl family took back a famous piece hanging in the museum—Dodo with a Large Fanby Ernst Kirchner—which had been labeled a “promised bequest.” It sold at Christie’s for $12.92 million. Carl and Alice Bimel have given so much money to the museum that the Alice Bimel Courtyard is named after the late benefactor. Carl Bimel says he remembers the moment he made up his mind about the director: “Betsky told me he wanted to bring Mapplethorpe back.” Robert Mapplethorpe’s photo exhibit The Perfect Moment included beautifully wrought but graphic images of homosexual S&M culture and was a touchstone of the culture wars when it was shown (and notoriously shut down) at the CAC in 1990. Bimel was worried that Betsky was going to pull the photos out of the closet again.

“I went home and told my wife about it,” he said. “We called our lawyer the next day and changed our will. What he’s doing, so much of the stuff he has aimed at kids—he is really hurting Cincinnati in the long run and will continue to. I don’t want to give a goddamn thing to that son of a bitch.”

It’s the dear old culture wars, looking a lot like the last few Clint Eastwood movies: Anyone still standing is running on bile and gristle. But putting Mapplethorpe and the young ones aside, there’s the very real problem of how to grow more donors. According to Tamara Harkavy, founder and director of Cincinnati ArtWorks, it’s a conversation she has regularly with Betsky, the Taft Museum’s Deborah Emont Scott, and Raphaela Platow of the CAC.

“Here’s the pie,” she says, “and if you look at the pie you will see the same names on my list [of donors] as you see on the Taft’s list and the CAC list. I’ve struggled internally with growing the pie, and I go back to Thank God for these people who have made huge contributions to this city. But the challenge is: the folks are dying off. It’s old money and with them goes their ability to write a check.”

There’s a plumb line that runs through the dissenters’ argument, a tangible sense that in modernizing the museum Betsky is breaking with the institution’s history. Drop that line all the way to the mucky bottom and you find a few shades of dissent that taint the criticism of some—though not all—who oppose him. Anti-Semitism and homophobia have become noticeable to various observers. One Betsky critic told me that, ultimately, it wasn’t the director’s fault what was happening to the museum; blame really goes to the Jews who had migrated from the board at the CAC to CAM.

A former board member told me that Betsky has only lasted this long because current board president Craig Maier, head of the Frisch’s restaurant chain, is afraid of a gay boycott of Frisch’s. “Seriously, should Aaron not have been an openly gay man he probably would not be there now,” this person said. “But the head of the largest law firm in the city”—chairman George Vincent, the managing partner at Dinsmore & Shohl—“was not going to say we had to get rid of him.”

At a dinner party in Clifton soon after he arrived, a guest in attendance, who has come to oppose the director, says Betsky declared he was “proud to be both the first Jewish and gay director of the museum.” The guest was appalled, saying it proved he came to town with an agenda. Mary Ran, the eponymous gallery owner, recalls him saying that the attacks were based on these issues of identity. “Well, look, the art world is gay and Jewish,” Ran says dismissively, and his critics don’t like him for other reasons.

When I bring it up, a very strange thing happens: Betsky gets uncharacteristically tongue-tied. Asked if he remembers expressing pride in being two important firsts, he pauses, says he doesn’t remember but that it doesn’t sound like him. “I don’t go around saying I’m proud of being gay—because I’m not proud of being gay,” he says. “I happen to be gay and would like it to be irrelevant to what I do. And to some extent whether or not I’m Jewish is irrelevant [too]. Now, having said that…” And then he goes on, torturing the language, struggling to find a place where he can be proud, and perhaps invisible, at the same time.

“I think Aaron has two personas,” says Sara Vance Waddell, head of SMV Media, a former board member, and a friend. “Sometimes Aaron can be stoic and keep things to himself. You don’t always know what he’s thinking.”

But at Music Hall in late March, Betsky showed a side of himself he usually keeps in check. It was the annual Spectrum Pride brunch, honoring Waddell and her partner Michelle for their support of Cincinnati arts. Betsky and his husband Peter were there, and when the museum director got up to say a few words, the audience had every reason to expect the deft, erudite culture guy most of them knew. What they got instead made some cry. Betsky talked about the attacks on him, and about the way his identity had been used as a wedge to try to drive him out of town.

“I heard Aaron say it loud, with tears in his eyes, that there is this criticism of being gay and Jewish and head of an art museum. That it’s hurtful and there is no place for it,” said Tamara Harkavy.

“Aaron caught the entire room off guard,” said Vance Waddell. When he was done, those in attendance stood up and clapped.

On May 20, at CAM’s annual board election, shareholders will vote on candidates to fill the open seats. The insurgents plan to mount another rebel slate, and hope they’ll do better this time. Should Betsky address the meeting, it will be as the polished, bulletproof director on the hill.

“I’ve been here for six years and of course I’ll never truly be a Cincinnatian,” he joked the first time we met. “I don’t have kids in high school. I do love my chili though.” That’s the director we are meant to see: self-aware, witty, conscious of the landscape he inhabits. And then he veered off script with a mildly impolitic remark about Graeter’s. In the end, it’s who he is: A critic. And a critic stands alone.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Spotlights

Arts’ reponse to Boston bombing

A guerilla art project in NYC offers messages of support for Boston

Jen Carlson, Gothamist.com, 4/16/13

Last night the side of the Brooklyn Academy of Music’s Peter Jay Sharp building became a canvas, displaying messages of support for Boston. The messages projected read:

Peace and Love,”

It shouldn’t take a tragedy for us to come together,”

Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that” (a Martin Luther King, Jr. quote), and

NY ♥ B (in the Red Sox font).

These were created by NYC Light Brigade and The Illuminator (“a political art project that emerged out of Occupy Wall Street”) who use light projections to display their messages. [They also live-streamed their activity last night.]


How do you promote a film about a terror attack on the day of a real attack?

Michael Cidoni Lennox, The Huffington Post, 4/16/13

Just hours after two bomb blasts provided a deadly conclusion to the Boston Marathon, principals from Star Trek Into Darkness were doing their jobs: putting on happy faces and plugging their big-budget film on the opening night of the annual movie-theater convention, CinemaCon. “We were all on the way out here just talking (about how) it is hard to go and pimp your movie on a day like this, when the nation is sort of coming together,” said one of the movie’s writer-producers, Damon Lindelof. “My cousin ran the Boston Marathon today. He finished half an hour before the explosions went off,” he said. “So, I’m just relieved that he’s OK. And I’m praying, and my thoughts are with the families of people that were injured or hurt in any way by this horrible thing.”  A number of [the] film’s actors [attended] the convention [including] Chris Pine (who plays Captain Kirk) and John Cho (Sulu). Like Lindelof, Cho had mixed feelings about hyping a movie on the same day as a national tragedy. “This is part of the job for us,” Cho explained. “(But) it was a weird feeling. I’m just going to say that. It’s so sobering.” Perhaps one reason is that, like the Boston bombings, Star Trek Into Darkness is propelled by a terrorist. The story pits Kirk against a one-time top Starfleet agent, who threatens the survival of both Earth and Kirk’s Enterprise crew. “Terrorism is a huge part of our lives,” noted Pine, “and we all know the effects of that.”


Actor/comedian’s Facebook post on Boston bombings goes mega-viral

Dylan Stableford, Yahoo News, 4/16/13

Like millions of others, Patton Oswalt watched in horror as the Boston Marathon bombings unfolded on Monday. Oswalt, a 44-year-old stand-up comedian and California-based actor, took to Facebook to post about the attack. Within hours, it was shared more than 150,000 times:

“Boston. Fucking horrible. I remember, when 9/11 went down, my reaction was, ‘Well, I’ve had it with humanity.’ But I was wrong. I don’t know what’s going to be revealed to be behind all of this mayhem…But here’s what I DO know. If it’s one person or a HUNDRED people, that number is not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population on this planet. You watch the videos of the carnage and there are people running TOWARDS the destruction to help out….This is beyond religion or creed or nation. We would not be here if humanity were inherently evil. We’d have eaten ourselves alive long ago. So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, ‘The good outnumber you, and we always will.'”


Quote of the Day

“This will be our reply to violence: to make music more intensely, more beautifully, more devotedly than ever before.” –Leonard Bernstein

Leave a comment

Filed under Spotlights

What the Brain Can Tell Us About Art


Published: April 12, 2013

“THIS month, President Obama unveiled a breathtakingly ambitious initiative to map the human brain, the ultimate goal of which is to understand the workings of the human mind in biological terms.

Jonathon Rosen

Many of the insights that have brought us to this point arose from the merger over the past 50 years of cognitive psychology, the science of mind, and neuroscience, the science of the brain. The discipline that has emerged now seeks to understand the human mind as a set of functions carried out by the brain.

This new approach to the science of mind not only promises to offer a deeper understanding of what makes us who we are, but also opens dialogues with other areas of study — conversations that may help make science part of our common cultural experience.

Consider what we can learn about the mind by examining how we view figurative art. In a recently published book, I tried to explore this question by focusing on portraiture, because we are now beginning to understand how our brains respond to the facial expressions and bodily postures of others.

The portraiture that flourished in Vienna at the turn of the 20th century is a good place to start. Not only does this modernist school hold a prominent place in the history of art, it consists of just three major artists — Gustav KlimtOskar Kokoschka and Egon Schiele — which makes it easier to study in depth.

As a group, these artists sought to depict the unconscious, instinctual strivings of the people in their portraits, but each painter developed a distinctive way of using facial expressions and hand and body gestures to communicate those mental processes.

Their efforts to get at the truth beneath the appearance of an individual both paralleled and were influenced by similar efforts at the time in the fields of biology and psychoanalysis. Thus the portraits of the modernists in the period known as “Vienna 1900” offer a great example of how artistic, psychological and scientific insights can enrich one another.

The idea that truth lies beneath the surface derives from Carl von Rokitansky, a gifted pathologist who was dean of the Vienna School of Medicine in the middle of the 19th century. Baron von Rokitansky compared what his clinician colleague Josef Skoda heard and saw at the bedsides of his patients with autopsy findings after their deaths. This systematic correlation of clinical and pathological findings taught them that only by going deep below the skin could they understand the nature of illness.

This same notion — that truth is hidden below the surface — was soon steeped in the thinking of Sigmund Freud, who trained at the Vienna School of Medicine in the Rokitansky era and who used psychoanalysis to delve beneath the conscious minds of his patients and reveal their inner feelings. That, too, is what the Austrian modernist painters did in their portraits.

Klimt’s drawings display a nuanced intuition of female sexuality and convey his understanding of sexuality’s link with aggression, picking up on things that even Freud missed. Kokoschka and Schiele grasped the idea that insight into another begins with understanding of oneself. In honest self-portraits with his lover Alma Mahler, Kokoschka captured himself as hopelessly anxious, certain that he would be rejected — which he was. Schiele, the youngest of the group, revealed his vulnerability more deeply, rendering himself, often nude and exposed, as subject to the existential crises of modern life.

Such real-world collisions of artistic, medical and biological modes of thought raise the question: How can art and science be brought together?

Alois Riegl, of the Vienna School of Art History in 1900, was the first to truly address this question. He understood that art is incomplete without the perceptual and emotional involvement of the viewer. Not only does the viewer collaborate with the artist in transforming a two-dimensional likeness on a canvas into a three-dimensional depiction of the world, the viewer interprets what he or she sees on the canvas in personal terms, thereby adding meaning to the picture. Riegl called this phenomenon the “beholder’s involvement” or the “beholder’s share.”

Art history was now aligned with psychology. Ernst Kris and Ernst Gombrich, two of Riegl’s disciples, argued that a work of art is inherently ambiguous and therefore that each person who sees it has a different interpretation. In essence, the beholder recapitulates in his or her own brain the artist’s creative steps.

This insight implied that the brain is a creativity machine, which obtains incomplete information from the outside world and completes it. We can see this with illusions and ambiguous figures that trick our brain into thinking that we see things that are not there. In this sense, a task of figurative painting is to convince the beholder that an illusion is true.

Some of this creative process is determined by the way the structure of our brain develops, which is why we all see the world in pretty much the same way. However, our brains also have differences that are determined in part by our individual experiences.

In addition to our built-in visual processes, each of us brings to a work of art our acquired memories: we remember other works of art that we have seen. We remember scenes and people that have meaning to us and relate the work of art to those memories. In order to see what is painted on a canvas, we have to know beforehand what we might see in a painting. These insights into perception served as a bridge between the visual perception of art and the biology of the brain.

So how does our brain respond to portraiture? As we look at a portrait, our brain calls on several interacting systems to analyze contours, form a representation of the face and of the body, analyze the body’s motion, experience emotion, and perhaps, empathy. Along with these instantaneous responses, we form a theory of the subject’s state of mind.

The brain’s representation of faces is especially important to the beholder’s response to portraiture. Our brain devotes more space to reading the details of faces than to any other object. We react strongly to the expressionist works of these Viennese artists, in part, because our brain contains specialized cells that respond powerfully to the exaggerated facial features these painters portrayed.

Moreover, the sense of stimulation we often experience when we look at a portrait is thought to be due in part to the activity of “mirror neurons.” Signaling by these cells in the motor areas of the brain can make us perceive the actions of others as if they were our own.

All of which goes to show that the real “eye” of the beholder is the brain itself.

Eric R. Kandel, a professor of brain science at Columbia University, a senior investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, is the author of “The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind and Brain, From Vienna 1900 to the Present.””

Leave a comment

by | April 15, 2013 · 2:41 pm

Humana Festival introduces new plays

Humana Festival introduces new plays photo
“Astronauts flew in ‘nightnight,’ a play by Lucas Hnath. ‘My immediate impulse was to link sleep and flight via space travel,’ said the playwright, who was commissioned to write a short play about sleep that would require aerial choreography. Contributed photo
Humana Festival introduces new plays photo
Claire E. Jones


By Meredith Moss


Theater buffs from around the nation and around the world flock to Louisville each spring for the Humana Festival of New American Plays. The prestigious festival, now in its 37th year, has introduced more than 400 plays over the years, including three Pulitzer-Prize winners.

The Festival, which opened on Feb. 27 and ran through April 7, can always be counted on to give each new play its best shot — with top-notch directors and actors and terrific sets and costumes. On the two final industry weekends, representatives from film, television and theaters of all sizes descend on the state-of-the-art Actors Theatre to check out the new scripts.

This year’s offerings ranged from a humorous adaptation of Henrik Ibsen’s 19th century masterpiece “Peer Gynt” titled “Gnit” by Will Eno to two family relationship dramas —“The Delling Shore” by Sam Marks and “Appropriate” by Branden Jacobs-Jenkins. The struggle for freedom was the subject of “Cry Old Kingdom” by Jeff Augustin, set in Haiti in 1964 at the time of revolution.

There are always some surprises at the festival. This year, in the middle of “O Guru Guru Guru, or Why I Don’t Want to Go To Yoga Class With You” by Mallery Avidon, audience members were invited to remove their shoes, come to the stage and participate in a chanting/meditation session. (Some audience members were so relaxed they fell asleep.)

The most creative idea of the weekend came with “Sleep Rock Thy Brain.” The challenge to three well-established playwrights was to create a short play on the subject of “dreams” that would include flying segments. Audiences were shuttled to a nearby school where the theater’s apprentice acting company achieved lift-off in partnership with Louisville’s ZFX Flying Effects company.

These were not your typical Peter Pan flying segments; these talented young people had obviously been training for months and looked perfectly at home in the air in their beautifully choreographed scenes. In “nightnight” by Lucas Hnath, for example, three astronauts were forced to deal with the consequences of lack of sleep and how it might jeopardize their mission. Their space walks and tumbles in the air were mesmerizing.

ATCA awards announced

It’s at the festival each year that The American Theatre Critics Association recognizes playwrights for outstanding scripts that premiere outside of New York City.

For 2013, the Harold and Mimi Steinberg/American Theatre Critics Association New Play Award of $25,000 went to Robert Schenmkkan’s play “All the Way.” The drama, which premiered at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, tells the story of Lyndon Johnson’s campaign to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Two citations of $7,500 each were presented to Lucas Hnath for his play “Death Tax” and Johnna Adams for her play “Gidion’s Knot.” “Death Tax, a drama that focuses on the issue of dying in a 21st century America where it’s possible to keep individuals alive indefinitely, was introduced to the public last year at the Humana Festival. “Gidion’s Knot”    is the drama that revolves around the mother of a dead student who visits his teacher seeking the back story behind his death. The play premiered at the Contemporary American Theatre Festival in Shepherdstown, W.V.

Cincinnati intern kept patrons happy

Claire E. Jones, an art history major from Cincinnati, has been serving as audience development and festival management intern for Actors Theatre this year.

Her responsibilities have ranged from coordinating airport pick-ups and hotels for the hundreds of industry professionals over special weekends to planning social media nights during the theater’s regular season.

“It’s our effort to reach out to broader, more technological audiences,” she says of the targeted evenings where tickets were available for just $20 and audiences were welcome to use Twitter, Facebook and Pinterest during the show. “The actors and stage managers loved the idea, though some theater purists felt the audience should lose itself in the darkness. But overall it was wildly successful; we even had actors tweeting backstage during “Romeo and Juliet.”

Jones, who previously worked as an intern at the Seattle Art Museum, also planned evenings where food and a bar were set up in the theater balcony.

“We talked to audience members afterwards and offered them drink tickets if they’d stay and talk to us,” Jones said. Some told her they’d never been to the theater before.

Jones says theaters have been forced by the recession to think outside the box.

“Previously there was a built-in audience of museum and theater-goers,” she said. “But now we need to attract new patrons, make it a more casual experience, and find ways to connect to people you might not think would be interested.””

Leave a comment

by | April 14, 2013 · 5:43 pm