Hi, Deborah. I'm rather surprised you don't have any comments. I would like to congratulate you on curating and co-curating a fabulous show. I so enjoyed the smilebox presentation. I'll come back and watch it another morning (or three) to start my day right. As I do research on women's roles (besides being an artist), I'd like to put a question to you to have your opinion. What struck me was the absence of young women (I would call them "kids" being over the hill myself). Does it just take women a lifetime to reach such sophistication in artistic expression because of the many roles we juggle? Or is there a break down in communication--do we need outreach efforts to attract young artists? Or is it something else? I see this is getting long. I'll stop here. Again Bravo! for a marvelous show.
Good Question, MP (do you have a name???). Many young people are artists but they need to make a living and are way more "hip" than us older gals. They tend to make mixed media, large scale, installation pieces, often overtly political, and/or commercially viable work (read: repetitive, often) so they can support themselves. Most of the serious artists in the textile field that I know have raised families, paid our dues by working a "day job" for 30 years, etc. We are finally getting the chance to bloom. Also, no art education in the schools has slowed things down, I think.Thank you for your kind words about the exhibit; it has garnered a lot of support though none other than yours on this blog!
Oh, yes, I usually sign my name, Nadia. Just too curious about the question and I forgot to sign. Your answer confirms what I kind of suspected. I think you put your finger on the problem of being commercially viable--the repetitiveness and speed required make it difficult. Of course, artists like Monet repeated a subject many times, but painting can be a good deal faster. Then there's the other way of looking at it...What do you do with something amazing like the Watts mosaic Towers in LA? I hope there's room for everyone!best, nadia