Flywheel

Of the $787 billion worth of aid in the latest stimulus package, only $50 million is being put towards the National Endowment for the Arts. This seems a particularly small piece of the pie for an industry that generates roughly $166 billion each year. However, this disconnect between funding and the arts’ economic importance hasn’t discouraged local arts collective Flywheel. The group is on track to celebrate its grand reopening slated for late spring or early summer.

Started in 1999, Flywheel operated a café and arts space located at 2 Holyoke Street in Easthampton. It quickly became a bastion of the arts in Western Massachusetts, providing a reliable performance space for both local and touring musicians. “While music is the focus, it’s not the exclusive thing,” says Jeremy Smith, a member of the organization. “The programming that happens really reflects whoever’s involved at any one time.” Visual arts, theatre, and other creative endeavors have all found homes at Flywheel.


Flywheel's new location at 43 Main Street, Easthampton.

The space has hosted many memorable concerts over the years. Speaking with Ken Maiuri, a writer for the Daily Hampshire Gazette and DJ at WMUA, he recalled one of his favorite shows. In 2000, the space hosted Harvey Sid Fisher, a cult musician who writes songs about astrology signs. “I didn’t think I’d ever be able to see him live, but for some reason, he played at Flywheel,” says Maiuri.

Over the years, Flywheel’s members began to realize the limitations of the small space. Smith brought up the example of Ted Leo, a now-popular indie rocker who played at Flywheel early in his career. Leo, who played a benefit show for the organization in October 2007 in Northampton, would have drawn too large an audience for the Holyoke St location.

Upstairs at the new Flywheel.

Then, in early 2007, Will Bundy, owner of East Works in Easthampton, submitted a proposal to turn the Easthampton Old Town Hall into an arts building. Bundy, who already found a framing shop and a gallery to rent space there, wanted a performance component for the building. Flywheel took up the offer, agreeing to rent the second story main hall and smaller first floor room. They closed the doors at Holyoke St. that spring and began the process of moving. “At first we thought it would be a six to eight month closing,” said Smith with a laugh. The new space is still waiting to open, pending completion of renovations.

In addition to the “wheels of bureaucracy grinding slowly,” says Smith, sprinklers are currently being installed, construction permits are waiting to be okayed, and the space’s paint was recently found to contain lead. The abatement of the lead paint put the group back roughly $10,000. “If we didn’t have to pay that, we probably would have enough money to do the whole thing,” says Smith, referencing the $20,000 - $40,000 needed to complete the rest of the renovations. However, the money is nearly all raised, and Smith hopes to see the space open by early summer.

Flywheel’s fundraising is now nearly all based on individual donations. When the space was open they earned money from the café and from shows, usually taking somewhere around 15 percent of the ticket price and distributing the rest to the musicians. With the space closed, however, those funds haven’t been available, which is one major incentive for opening as soon as possible.


Downstairs at the new Flywheel.

While the organization hasn’t felt direct effects of the recession yet, there have been some repercussions. The Massachusetts Cultural Council had an open-ended arts grant for which Flywheel planned to apply. However, that grant has now been cancelled, closing a potential source of revenue for Flywheel (and other not-for-profits).

The city of Easthampton, while not funding anything directly, is taking a hand in aid by covering electrical and heat bills for the first few years of the new space’s operation.

During the recession, Smith believes that Flywheel could be beneficial in providing revenue for working artists as well as providing relatively cheap entertainment. “We’re supporting artists and giving them a venue to make money. It’s an affordable entertainment option for people, and I know with limited amounts of disposable cash it’s an option for people. And also we’re supporting artists, so artists have a venue to perform their work, they can make some money, they can get their word out, so that definitely has an impact.”

Flywheel reopens later this spring or early this summer.

Listen to Ken Maiuri discuss his experiences with Flywheel. Music by Northampton musician Eric Hnatow.

Art, Attribution, and Shepard Fairey

In early February, the Associated Press accused artist Shepard Fairey of copyright infringement in failing to credit photographer Mannie Garcia for the image on which the now iconic Obama portrait was based.

Before the A.P. could sue Fairey, however, the artist beat them to the punch with a lawsuit of his own.

Fairey's lawyers stated that he shouldn't be forced to receive "misguided threats from The A.P." In an interview with NPR's Terry Gross, Fairey seems to imply that the A.P.'s allegations were harmful to his reputation as an artist. This would appear to be the main motive behind the preemptive legal action.

Garcia, in an interview of his own with Gross, cares most about Fairey's lifting the photograph off the web. "Simply because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's free for the taking." In the New York Times, Garcia again brings up the issue of the web. “I don’t condone people taking things, just because they can, off the internet.”

The real issue at hand, behind the damaged egos and internet anger, seems to be one for the art majors to debate: How much does an image need to be changed for it to exist as a work of art in its own right, not merely as an altered version of an existing image?

Famous art of the past jumps to mind. Take Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans. Should the credit for these paintings go to Warhol or the original designer of the labels? After all, there would be no Warhol painting without the original label layout.

Or take Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q., a postcard of the Mona Lisa with a mustache drawn on and those mysterious letters written underneath. Duchamp didn't much alter the original painting, and certainly less than Fairey did Garcia's photograph. So, was it Duchamp's right to call the product his own work?

It becomes tricky terrain when the worlds of attribution and art start to mix. Nearly all art is based on some sort of preexisting image. What if everyone who's been portrayed in a painting files suit against the painters? What if the manufacturers of the myriad products appearing in photographs on Flickr sue the photographers? Follow this path and eventually there exists no art.


What does seem fair is that Fairey should pay the applicable licensing fees for using A.P. media, just as any major organization would. Beyond that, no damage claims should be filed on either side. Fairey's use of the image doesn't hurt the Associated Press, and they haven't done anything to seriously damage Fairey's reputation. The portrait in fact ups the profile of both parties involved.

Perhaps, too, Garcia should be happy (after receiving the usual compensation from the A.P.) that one of his photographs played such a major role at an important time in history.

Oh, wait, he already is.

“If you put all the legal stuff away, I’m so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it’s had.”

So... why are we still arguing?