August 2, 2006
Habitat for Tyler
Artist, Santa Cruz organizer, co-founder of Three Gut Records, Eye Weekly art director and woman-about-town Tyler Clark Burke launches her newest – and most ambitious – project today: The Few Bricks Short A House Project. Tyler wants to buy a house, and has enlisted some of her friends to help her do it. Starting today, you can bid on a variety of items or services donated by Toronto artists, photographers, musicians, and writers - as well as her mom. 40% of the profits will go to the donor, 40% will go to Tyler, and the remaining 20% will be donated to Habitat for Humanity.
The contributors include k-os, Sook-Yin Lee, Peaches, Food Jammer Nobu Adilman, Trampoline Hall’s Misha Glouberman, Broken Social Scenester Justin Peroff, Dave Meslin, playwright Darren O’Donnell, and Leslie Feist, who along with her band will learn the song of the winning bidder (either a song you choose or one you wrote yourself) and perform it at one of her concerts (how cool is that?)
On top of that, Tyler is selling bricks of her future house for $20 each. If you buy a brick, you’ll get your name painted on a mural on the side of the house. Tyler will also be posting 5 pictures/paintings a day for the duration of the project, selling them for $100 each.
Check out the website for complete listings and information.
P.S. The next Santa Cruz is taking place August 26 at Captain John's. Torontoist will definitely be there.
|
http://cheapairfaresnew.blogspot.com/ ">cheap airfares
[url=http://cheapairfaresnew.blogspot.com/]cheap airfares[/url]
Why doesn't she just ask all her West Queen West trust fund artist friends for secret donations, in exchange for providing corroboration when they sit around the Beaconsfield complaining about how "broke" they are?
Whatever. I think it's a great idea; you're just kicking yourself because you didn't think of it first. I don't even like Feist and that's an awesome prize.
I commented yesterday to the same basic effect of what David just said, only longer. My comment was deleted.
I have to admit this project irks me in ways I don't quite comprehend yet. It probably has something to do with economics and poor people and how just anyone (poor) couldn't pull this off with success (not that Tyler will necessarily be successful -- time will tell). I'm not sure as well, but it seems sort of this weird abuse of celebrity status -- I can't explain why, maybe it's something akin to selling soda pop on tv commercials (not that I even feel this is wrong), or maybe it's something different. The charity aspect of the project is confusing too -- is the intention of this project to raise money for charity, or is it being used to make it look pure and good. If intentions are pure, could more/all the money go to charity? If the charity aspect was removed, could it exist on the art merit alone? The website says it's a "a hastily composed body of text which disallows the in-depth, shirts-off, hair-down explanation of this project", so maybe when it's updated it will better sell the idea. I'll try to reserve my harsh, harsh (very harsh that most people fear) judgement 'til then.
I'd like to see more debate and thoughts about this (to help sort it out in my mind). It seems people are really into it. Maybe I just don't understand art! Sigh.
I respect all these people and all the amazing stuff they do, so I'm a little confused as to why I don't fall in line here.
ps. the link to her website in the main post isn't working properly
"As for me, I'm an artist in Toronto and, for the first time in my life, I feel like I need to make a home for myself. I have lived in over 30 places with more than 65 roommates. My bedroom is overflowing with art supplies and paintings. I have surprised myself and my friends with this sudden desire to throw down an anchor, but some pretty compelling family situations have contributed to this need for stability."
So then save the money you earn as art director for Eye Weekly. And if they don't pay enough, then maybe you can lower your standards, and work for a big corporat... oh, wait.
Okay, I had a shower and came to the realization that this could be looked at like a modern-day-urban-artist barn raising, and that she's reaching out to her community for support to get some habitual stability in her life. I guess I can see some merit in this. Good on ya Tyler!
But readers, I still expect a thrashing for my first comment, and opponents of the project, please thrash me for this comment. I need a good thrashing every now and then.
ps. i've got to waterproof my basement and i was quoted $12,800. holy moly. I'm accepting donations, and two dollars from each donation will go to my pet hamster's cage
It's dumb. I agree.
And as an artist, I take offence at the implications of this project being called art.
We could get into the semantics of what art is or isn't, but the reality is this is exactly the kind of thing that makes people hate anything artistic.
And I really don't think the intent of art should be to make you hate art.
At least that woman who had the breast milk bar put a lot of thought and effort into her work.
And the other reality is, that yeah, giving some of the money to charity seems like an admission that what she's doing is a bad thing. If it were really "art", she'd just be selling bricks to people and leaving it at that.
At this point she might as well be selling blank canvases to people with a 500 percent markup, and maybe not saying it was buying herself a house - but that would be implied.
Sorry scenesters but what does this have to do with you personally?
You've all wasted so much time on Stillepost bickering about which of the bands that just started yesterday are the new bestest band ever that you've gone and started to think your opinion actually matters.
It seems all the people involved in TCB's project are fully aware of where the money is going so other than just hearing the sounds of your own self-righteousness what do you hope to accomplish?
"So then save the money you earn as art director for Eye Weekly. And if they don't pay enough, then maybe you can lower your standards, and work for a big corporat... oh, wait."
Good one, boo hoo hoo. I envy your ability to not have to 'lower your standards' - whatever that means.
(disclosure: I'm an old friend of Tyler's but that doesn't mean I agree with everything she does)
Is this going to turn into one of those flame wars that consist of scenesters calling one another "scenesters"?
The cry of the poor artist has been sounded since time began. But this is a woman who does have a day job, and no doubt the means to find adequate shelter as a result.
Yes, who doesn't love a cute eccentric chick, whose claim to fame is arranging dance parties for socially inept men.
The only people that employ phrases like 'claim to fame' with a straight face are the hosts of E-Talk Daily.
i'm kind of with boo hoo hoo and sean et al - this project makes me uncomfortable and i'm going to spend a bit of time thinking about why. off the cuff, it's the cynicism i guess - "watch me and my semi-celebrity friends get me something i want and we'll call it art and we'll probably get away with it".
and i don't think it's self-righteousness that is making us all feel funny. there's a deeper moral issue here and also something about the meaning/purpose/utility of art-making.
however, we all have a choice and i can think of about a hundred causes i'd get behind before helping with this one. so on an action level, this one's a no-brainer. yay!
(disclosure: i don't know tyler personally but i know many of her donors. i like santa cruz, think eye looks great and don't like her current sculpture show. the girl has good energy and i like her hair).
Tyler, I generally love what you do, but I've got to say this project just seems really tacky - like a big circle jerk of self promotion.
I hate it when people you think are your friends start treating you like an employee because you have something fun/interesting/beautiful to offer. It sucks the fun right out of whatever you're doing.
meh if you don't agree with it don't support it... quit complaining and do something about it... if you think TCB should be giving more money to Habitat, then organize yer own fundraiser, you think this isn't art and can do better, then go and make something... art is about action and thought and discourse, this is what she has already achieved through this thread... no matter if she gets a new house out of it or not...
Don't worry Jim, I won't be supporting it. That doesn't mean, however, that I can't or shouldn't discuss it.
To that end, I'm in wonder that anyone considers this to be "art." TCB's function here is that of a broker. In case the Queen St/Bay St chasm is too wide for people to get that, let me explain in brief.
What brokers do is mediate sales between two parties. In those towers on Bay Street, people spend their working lives doing just that. As their reward of arranging all these sales, they take a percentage or a fee. Then they use that money to do things like buy houses. Incredibly artistic, isn't it?
The big difference here is that instead of brokering a sale of securities or real estate, TCB is brokering the sale of knick-knacks, or someone's time. I'm not sure that the switch of product is sufficient to consecrate the action of brokering as art.
All that said, there is an argument that TCB's whopping 40% commission could, perhaps, be considered art solely in terms of its audaciousness.
Despite the reference on her web-site, tcb can’t really frame her efforts as "brokerage" in a believable way and neither does she self-identify as a "broker". she promotes herself as an artist in need of a house. and she refers to this project (for which she is personally generating a great deal of "art") as a "project". she is happily blurring the lines to suit her purposes. so I don't think the analogy holds up. even to those of us who are able to occasionally (if we're really really drunk and horny) straddle the so-called bay street/queen street divide.
i wonder if tcb and co would consider re-jigging their profit structure to give istvan kantor a small cut towards his legal fees (i guess he's gonna have some, if not today, then soon)? In the spirit of community, I mean?
I agree that this whole "project" reeks, but I really just wanted to point out that if "40% of the profits will go to the donor" then it's not really a donation, is it?
"What brokers do is mediate sales between two parties. In those towers on Bay Street, people spend their working lives doing just that. As their reward of arranging all these sales, they take a percentage or a fee. Then they use that money to do things like buy houses. Incredibly artistic, isn't it?"
So Jonathan, I look forward to you taking on every single gallery on Queen St. because you've also just described exactly what they do.
As for calling it "a big circle jerk of self promotion."
There are a couple really big tossers on her list, for sure, but this whole project is a little big to just be shrugged off as merely a wank.
Why would I take on art galleries? Art galleries hold themselves out as businesses, not as works of art in-and-of-themselves. The people that own art galleries, thus, pay business taxes and the like. Owning an art gallery and selling art is, then, the art gallery owner’s job. With the money they make from their job, they buy houses and the like. They don’t pretend it’s not a job, or that it’s a not business, merely a neat happening, or basically that it’s not what it is.
Whatever TCB is holding herself out as, she is by-and-large brokering sales. For example, Feist is offering “X” on the auction market via TCB’s website. Somebody will buy “X” from Feist. TCB is taking 40% of the proceeds as commission. That’s what it is. That makes TCB a broker. She could call it “art,” she could call it “fudge,” she could call it “World War 3,” she could call it “Susan,” ... that’s up to her. Doesn’t change the fact, though, that what she is doing is brokering a sale. Brokers are intermediaries between buyers and sellers. Is there another way to describe this? As an above poster points out, no one is donating anything here. The “donors” getting a “cut” of the sale price, at least that’s how TCB’s website portrays the plan. Rationally, however, these people are selling their time, or goods, or performance abilities via TCB’s website. TCB then takes 60% of the selling price (40% being her commission and 20% going to charity).
TCB is, I acknowledge, auctioning some of her own work too. That’s a different thing entirely, and is not brokering. That’s just auctioning.
So, to recap, I see no evil in selling art. I just don’t think that selling art is art. It’s a business.
i really like you tyler so please don't take this personally.
i find it quite astounding that so many musicians and friends have decided to back you on this - just on principle alone. i think of all the less fortunate people surviving in this city, struggling to make ends meet. i think we are all entitled to a place to live and I agree that paying rent to pay off someone elses mortgage is a waste of money…….BUT….you are an art director for one of the biggest weekly papers in the country and run a successful night called santa cruz. do you really feel you are a worthy charity case?
if it's purely an individual business enterprise we're discussing here, then i don't want to hear about it anymore. just as i don't wish to be solicited to buy vacumn cleaners.
why am i getting emails about it and why is torontoist writing about this entrepreneurial endeavour? cause, jonathan, if you're correct (and part of me agrees with you), it's just capitalism. snore.
maybe TCB should commiserate with "Save Karyn"
http://savekaryn.com/AboutSaveKaryn.htm
"Art galleries hold themselves out as businesses, not as works of art in-and-of-themselves. "
So your arguing the semantics. My mom told me never to argue semantics - especially on the interweb.
Also, I want everyone to know that I've heard from the less fortunate and while they don't have web access they want you to know your empty sentiment and middle-class self-righteousness is going to keep them dry tonight.
That said, I know ALL about artists abusing others for profit, twisting words like 'collective' and 'group' while cashing in 100% and not paying others what they deserved - I just think this is nothing like that since it's a full disclosure of where the $$$ is going.
Anyway I'm off to buy a brick.
Yesterday was a bad day, first because I watched that OK GO video with the treadmills (if you don't know what I am talking about go to Youtube) and that video made me think, DAMMIT I wish MY band thought of that.
Then, I saw Tyler's auction and again I thought DAMMIT I wish I had thought of that. I have decided to blame my lack of any original ideas on the heat wave.
Good for Tyler for pouring her energy into a fantastically bold and tacky (who says tacky is bad?) project that promotes not only her friends "art" but also her own needs and wants in this "big circle jerk of self promotion".
I also can't help but wonder what people's reactions would be if a guy did this project instead of a gal... would there be more high fives?
tl
I think what she's doing is cool, and that the goods and services being auctioned off are, for the most part, fucking insane. (I mean that as a compliment.) I am also extraordinarily impressed at how quickly she was able to mobilize this city's hipster elite to rally around her cause.
I also want to say that I'm not the same "Jonathan" as above.
"I also can't help but wonder what people's reactions would be if a guy did this project instead of a gal... would there be more high fives?"
My reaction would be exactly the same, actually.
Don't try and turn this into something it's not.
I find it really interesting that some of the supporters of this project keep telling the dissenters to keep quiet.
If this is art, than the artist is asking and should want us to talk about it. She's holding a public event and therefore soliciting our reactions and discourse. She can't control the nature of that discourse.
If it does nothing else, it has created an interesting discussion on what can be called art between people who obviously respect artistic endevour. (more interesting than medoicre gripping by those saying "that's not art, my kid could do it").
But that in and of itself doesn't make the project art. And I think the dissenters have presented a more coherent defence of their position(s).
We shouldn't be trying to stiffle that discussion. Even if you happen to like this artist and her work. She put it out there and we have a right to discuss it.
I think Tyler's quite happy we're discussing it -- she put a link on her main site "Also, lots of good criticism of this auction/sale here."
Bullshit or not, she can certainly call this auction thing "art." Anybody who thinks that it's transgressive as "art" doesn't know much about art of the past 50 years.
What's interesting, to me, is the attitude TCB is playing on here (with who knows how much earnestness): that renting is just such a waste, living with roommates is so hard, and it would really only be right for her to live in a house.
In other words: a mix of bourgy entitlement and overgrown-adolescent whining at the idea of actually saving money to buy your own property. And balls! This is, yes, a woman with a real job.
Only in this city would that get taken seriously.
sez the website: "This is not an art project (per se), but a 10-day venture into business ventures involving many creative objects-items-services-exorcisms." [emph mine]
so that's settled.
the only difference between TCB's role in this and a normal retailer's role in selling goods is that her friends are agreeing to either do things they wouldn't normally do, or get paid rates they wouldn't normally accept. obviously this is because she is their friend. perhaps you've all forgotten what it means to be someone's friend -- it's about helping each other out sometimes when they ask for your help.
as for the selling part, i don't think TCB is asking people to buy these goods out of charity -- she probably knows full well that people will be buying Peaches' used thong or have Feist perform their song or whatever because they want to, not to help TCB buy a house. it's pretty up front. would that more capitalist ventures were like that.
(full disclosure i write for eye, blah blah TCB is my co-pilot etc etc)
Stating "this is not an art project (per se)" is kind of like "ExxonMobil is not an environmental organization (per se)".
i sincerely doubt this lame idea will raise enough money to buy a subscription to eye magazine, let alone a house.
i think the auction of weird performances + artworks is a cool idea, and tyler's a good one to do it. on the other hand, the "buy me a house" + habitat for humanity guilt-money + using terms like "donor" just muddies things up, and rightfully leaves people a little pissy.
as to the content of the auction, aren't most of these things that you could just do yourself? why do you want to pay some d-list indie semi-demi-celeb to wash your car or sing you a song? i remember something similar when i was in high school, and the cool seniors would auction themselves off to the younger kids for a day to raise money for school trips and stuff. it was called "the slave auction".
but that's part of the beauty of all tcb's projects, isn't it? they're all so high school. basically she's the art director of the school newspaper and the chairman of the prom committee for indie toronto already, so why not run the slave auction too?
I stopped reading the comments about halfway down, because I just don't have that kind of timwe to read comments from a couple of people that won't listen to the other persons argument, but are more than happy to engage in rebuttal. Snore.
I agree with the side that says "Um, Tyler, you have a pretty good job. Suck it up and save the $$$ like the rest of the plebes". But then again, whatever floats your boat. You can only make a decision for yourself, and anyone wants to be a sucker and give her the cash, then whats it to you?
Really I'm here to say that I found the following hilarious:
"You've all wasted so much time on Stillepost bickering about which of the bands that just started yesterday are the new bestest band ever that you've gone and started to think your opinion actually matters."
Niiiiiice.
A couple of things about this project that are worthy of discussion -
The first is that it rather muddles the ideas of 'housing need' (via the involvement of HforH) with 'housing want'. It's pretty safe to say, having looked into buying a place in Toronto myself, that a single individual like Tyler with a decent regular paycheck, and money coming in from a regular club night, and perhaps a credit card or two could quite easily afford the downpayment on a decent one bedroom condo/apartment anywhere downtown. That is, her own resources can take care of her ' housing need' if we can agree to define 'owing one's own private dwelling in a major urban centre' as a need. Why she needs an entire house, except for needing to be able to freely paint the mural on its bricks, is anyone's guess. But of course I think, as anyone would, she probably just 'wants' to have an entire house. It is from here that people's knee-jerk reaction about this being 'tacky' and/or ridiculous or exploitative, rightly, arises.
However, this particular way of potentially satisfying one's housing 'wants' is generating about infinity percent more moulah for Habitat for Humanity then most other instances of people satisfying their housing 'wants'. And for this, this part of the transaction is quite admirable.
The other thing I wonder about is the economic disparity between those donating items for auction. It's safe to say that Feist (for example), can probably afford to satisfy her housing needs and wants from her artistic work, and so will have no reservations about sharing profits on her 'donation' to get her pal TCB a flash pad. However, what of the less financially secure artists on the list? How will they feel later down the line when TCB is lounging in the 1/16th of her new sunroom that 40% their painting/song/book paid for, and they're doing a shift at the call centre to make rent between paying gigs?
What do you think?
who in the world does this possibly hurt?
Does a bad movie hurt people? Not if you don't attend. That is why they have movie critics. But we don't slag them for standing up and speaking the truth and pointing out something is crap.
The whole project is in bad taste. That can sometimes be fun - but it isn't here.
But the puppet from the Nanalan guy is cool. If that was being offered for a real charitable fundraiser, I'd bid.
It reminds me of many house painting parties I've participated in, where so many people show to help that some hang out on the back stairs smoking, and I'm thinking "How come I could only get Bill (who owes me $57 anyway) to help me paint my apartment?"
And I don't understand why the artists are taking a cut. Is it because some of them are needy enough that the odd $80 or so will mean more to them rather than putting it towards the goal of raising $$ to buy a house? I guess since there is no way enough $$ for a house could be raised this way, maybe the real goal is to help out those needy artists?
The artists are expending time and energy, and the purchasers/consumers are donating $$. They're the ones throwing out the cash for jokily ersatz products. The purchasers are the donors. The artists have thought up the fun little conceits that are being sold. So it's the artists who are acting as brokers in this transaction - they are facilitating the movement of money from the purchaser to TCB's house fund.
At the end of the project, when TCB realizes she has all of about $2400, I just hope that money goes back either to the needy artists that were involved in this scheme or the HforH.
you know, this is typical of toronto. not tyler's project, which is something unique, but the response, which is completely predictable. honestly, think it through. if tyler opened a gallery, called it 'the burke gallery' and sold art and took her 50%, nobody would say shit. everyone would love off on it cause its the beaten path. and she could take her 50%(more than she's taking in this case) and not be transparent, and not tell anyone how shes spending her profit. and nobody would care. but in this case, because she's made her intensions transparent, everyone feels like they can get on their pitiful soap box and rant crap. eat it. honestly. its amazing when people have the guts to be transparent and to not hold their cards to their chest. most people can't do that and when they see someone else who has the balls to let it hang out, they go out of their way to thrash them, and humiliate them, and knock them back down into quiet oblivion. really, in the end, its just insecurity at work here. if more people had the vision that tyler has, this city would be so much better for it. grow up, or move back to the suburbs.
What I really hate is when people assume criticism is based in jealousy.
What am I so jealous of? That Tyler has a following or a good job at Eye? Does everyone have to be an aspiring artist? I don’t want to be artist. I like my job.
But I enjoy art. I like buying it (when I can afford it). I wish I could afford more of it. I like reading about art, going to see it, hearing it and experiencing it.
And I like to make things. But I don’t want to be an artist. Too tiring, too much criticism. I don’t want strangers commenting on whether I'm good at my hobby, (which I know I'm not. That’s not false modesty, btw. Still, making things makes me happy.) I make them for me and sometimes for my friends and if they hate them, they are polite enough not to be too critical.
But that’s not a good environment for artists to live in. Criticism is important. And sometimes it will come from other artists and sometimes from amatuers and sometimes from critics and sometimes from the public like me.
Why is the lable of jealousy the knee jerk response whenever I hear criticism? It doesn’t matter if it’s criticism of a famous hollywood director or some local artist. Fans always react the same way. It’s an ugliness I can’t understand.
This claim of jealousy is just a straw man anyway. Even if we are all jealous, it doesn’t have anything to do with the project's worth. A bitter jealous critic could still have a point.
Why try to insult and intimidate those who disagree with you? Surely if she's so very grand, these tactics aren't necessary to show her project is worthy our admiration.