Skatopia (part 2)

Brandon Martin in the concrete park at the top of Skatopia.

Skatopia

Two weeks ago I went out to an 88 acre farm called Skatopia in rural Ohio where skateboarders live by their own rules. Anyone can visit as long as they are willing to work. I think most of the people visiting are skateboarders who want to skate the amazing bowls and ramps there, but there is a growing number of folks that go there because of the freedom friendly environment; anything goes as long as you're not hurting others. While I was there I made this photograph of Amity Martin who's father owns Skatopia.



I plan on going back in June.

The Revolution

Reading a piece by Clay Shirky today about newspapers and came across this particularly powerful quote,

When someone demands to know how we are going to replace newspapers, they are really demanding to be told that we are not living through a revolution. They are demanding to be told that old systems won’t break before new systems are in place. They are demanding to be told that ancient social bargains aren’t in peril, that core institutions will be spared, that new methods of spreading information will improve previous practice rather than upending it. They are demanding to be lied to.

I figured I would do my part in this revolution and republish Clay's words here for free.

The revolution's impact is certainly felt where photojournalism and editorial photography are prominent. Those cheap forms of print that you throw away after a day, week, month or a year (if you're a real pack rat) are going to die. That said, I think there will still be print in the future. People will still want to have a real physical book, print, painting etc. from their favorite writer, painter or photographer.

Thanks to Ranjit for the tip.

Peter Boettke

Peter Boettke is the Deputy Director of the James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy at George Mason University. He is also an avid sports fan and coaches his son's high school basket ball team. Before I made this photograph, Boettke told me how the basic principles of economics were taught to him on the court as a kid.

Arizona Trip Update

As many of you know I'm heading out to Arizona next month to make a portrait of Prof. David Schmidtz. In a previous post I indicated that I might be able to photograph the recently retired Gordon Tullock on this trip as well. Gordon has agreed to the shoot.

I'd also like to point out that readers of this blog have given $350.00 for this trip. I'd like to extend my most sincere thanks to those of you who support my work.

If you would like to help make this shoot happen, please click the ChipIn button to the right. I have gotten enough to cover the plane ticket and a portion of the car rental so far.

Taxes Supporting Artists

I am a daily reader of Jorg Colberg's blog, Conscientious, and I always find great information there about contemporary photography. That said, I can't disagree more with this recent post.

They [federal subsidies to the arts] are about preserving and nourishing the human spirit. And anybody opposed to spending whatever measly amounts of money goes towards the arts in the US is opposed to exactly that.

The quote above implies that the preservation of the human spirit is dependant on the federal government, and that is not something that I am prepared to accept. We shouldn't let ourselves believe that the only way for art to thrive is by government support. I want to make it clear that my argument is not with Colberg's belief that art is important. In fact in some ways we agree: if I'm going to be taxed at all, I'd rather my money go to supporting art rather than war. I believe, however, that there is another way. There is a fundamental difference between voluntary donations and money taken through taxation. If we want more of this sort of activity, we should be in favor of people retaining more of their own wealth so they can support things they value, including art.

I think it is time for artists to concentrate more on the pursuance of a better freer world where people interact on a voluntary basis. This should be our ideal, not only for art but for all aspects of life. We should hold that $50.00 given in support of an art project by someone who understands it is worth more than $1000.00 which was taken from someone who knows nothing about it. You think that sounds ridiculous? Clearly $950.00 is a lot of cash but lets consider the following perspective on the real value of that money. In the former case there is a real connection made between the person supporting the art and the artist, in the latter there is none. In the former case the artist has earned a connection with the individual which has the potential to last for that artist's whole career. We need to ask ourselves what is more important, a one shot dose of $950.00 from a nameless, faceless tax payer or $50.00, respect and potential future support of a individual?

If we want the importance of art to enter into the consciousness of our fellow citizens then we should pursue the former.

Colberg's justification for the federal government funding the arts rests on his belief that photographs such as the one below wouldn't have been taken without assistance from government funds.



Throughout history there have certainly been great works of art and architecture created with government funding, but that doesn't mean government is the only way or even the best way.

The Boom Is Over. Long Live Art!

An interesting article in the NYTs. Here is a quote from the end that I liked,

I’m not talking about creating ’60s-style utopias; all those notions are dead and gone and weren’t so great to begin with. I’m talking about carving out a place in the larger culture where a condition of abnormality can be sustained, where imagining the unknown and the unknowable — impossible to buy or sell — is the primary enterprise. Crazy! says anyone with an ounce of business sense.

Right. Exactly. Crazy.

Sounds impractical, but it might not be....