EFFORT over CHEMISTRY IN RELATIONSHIP

What is actual chemistry? It’s definition is “the branch of science that deals with the identification
of the substances of which matter is composed; the investigation of their properties and the ways in
which they interact, combine, and change; and the use of these processes to form new substances.”

Let’s think about that in terms of relationships. Mostly the part how they interact, combine, and
change.

Just like chemicals, people have different properties and reactivity. People can form bonds that hold
them together. Sometimes people are just too different to every combine.

Those that do combine often do so violently and reactively. I’ve known couples that were like
Hydrogen and Oxygen. They combined into water very nicely and were stable. However, with just a
slightly different configuration, the could have combined into hydrogen peroxide instead of water.
Hydrogen Peroxide is very reactive and can be used as rocket fuel.

PRO

Chemistry is about that reaction we feel when we are strongly attracted to someone. It’s when those
great dopamine receptors in our brain get activated that we feel this so-called “chemistry.” That’s
why we call dopamine the “love hormone.”

dr gray brown, a marriage counselor stated that It turns out that you can develop chemistry over
time. It’s not always going to be immediate “fireworks and rockets.”

For reasons unknown, sometimes chemistry simply builds over time. While chemistry is a
wonderful way to start a relationship, it tends to take a bit of a back seat for couples who have
relationships that last longer than a few weeks, months, or years. Chemistry is a wonderful feeling
to have. And, it’s not enough.

So, while chemistry is a wonderful way to begin a relationship, by itself, it’s not enough to sustain a
relationship over time. “Chemistry might not be felt initially but can develop later.” you may
not feel chemistry on first meeting a person is that you are stressed or preoccupied about a business,
family, or other matter. But later, when you’re relaxed, chemistry might develop.

Some couples falls in love instantly, quickly marry, and it works out well. These are the lucky ones,
probably because it turns out that they have enough in common in terms of values, interests, and
desirable character traits that stand the test of time.

“Love at first sight” is not an accurate predictor of relationship success. Research has shown that
“couples with steady, longer courtship periods and awareness of each other’s strengths and
weaknesses were more likely to remain happily married over the long term...Couples with
“Hollywood Romances”—bursting, passionate courtships that quickly result in marriage — quickly
grew dissatisfied as spouses, and predictably, were more likely to divorce within seven years.”

Occasionally it takes some time for the chemistry to appear. If you feel compatible with the person,
and not repulsed, don’t give up quickly. Mutual attraction may develop over time as you get to
know him or her.

Sometimes from the outside looking in we look at relationships and wonder what it is that makes
some work and others not. Is there a secret ingredient of sorts that only some couples have
discovered? How is she able to get past his messy ways and why does he seem to be so supportive
when she is struggling? One of the main things that determines if a relationship is really going to
work is the effort put in to making it work. There isn’t a key strategy so much as the desire to
always give more than you get, to focus on what you can do for your partner over what you need
your partner to do for you. It’s about asking yourself “how do I want to prioritize my relationship
today?” Sadly so many of us focus on what we are going to get and what our partner is or isn’t
giving. Not only does this leave you dissatisfied but it also causes fractures in your connection
because the lens you are using is focused on taking not giving. The belief that each person needs to
show up for their 50% is dated and no longer supported by current research. Instead we need both
parties to show up giving 100% of their efforts. There are times, of course when one person may not
be able to give their full 100% (loss of a loved one, losing a job, health crisis etc) and we need to be
flexible with this. All other times, however, I would encourage you to set the expectation that you
both give it your all. Focusing on what you can give versus what you can get doesn’t mean you
should become complacent with a partner who isn’t doing their fair share. It means instead of
holding your partner responsible for creating happiness in the relationship, you hold yourself
responsible and expect them to do the same. Relationships are going to go through their ups and
downs. The ones like look easy also struggle. You have times where you feel really connected and
right for each other and times when you feel like you have nothing in common. It is in those hard
times that you need to both commit to giving fully of yourself and talking about how you want to
get back in sync. We focus so much on what we deserve that we actually forget what’s right in front
of us the entire time. Maybe love was never about what you deserve, but what you never thought
you needed until you realize they make your life a whole lot better. The world romanticizes
relationships so much that we have this tendency to higher unnecessary expectations, and maybe
this has everything to do with unrealistic portrayals of relationships in novels and books.
Either way, maybe the definition of love is so blurred that we don’t even know how to tell if we
really do love someone. Romance novels portray unrealistically high standards on how you show
you love someone with a grand gesture, such as a candlelight dinner with rose petals surrounding it
or giving a huge bouquet of roses with every kind of chocolate she would like.

Maybe love has nothing to do with the things you buy for the person you love because love can’t be
measured by the amount of flowers you buy for her or by the amount of roses surrounding a
candlelight dinner. Just because you choose to kiss someone under the pouring rain just like The
Notebook, it doesn’t suddenly mean you love her. Money can’t buy happiness, and it certainly can’t
buy love either. Love isn’t a Nicholas Sparks novel because in real life, relationships last because
you work for it. When you say effort is a need for a relationship, this doesn’t mean just buying them
their favorite flower or spending money on that book they always wanted to buy for themselves.
Effort is a more intimate thing than spending your money on them. paying attention to all of them
when you’re with them, and not putting half your attention on your phone. It’s actually being
genuinely curious as to how they’ve been doing and wanting to know their deepest and saddest
thoughts at night, and what made them feel this way. It’s surprising them on their birthday and
going to their place and making their day special, because you know how much they look forward
to their birthday. It’s actually making them feel wanted and treating them the way they deserve.
Effort was never about the material things. Effort is how loved and valued you make them feel,
whether you’re together or apart. It’s about her not having to tell you what she needs because you
already know it. It’s about forehead kisses and cuddles on mornings because you know how grumpy
she gets in the morning, but not when you wake her up right. It’s about never making her feel like
she puts in all the effort to make the relationship work. It’s about making her a priority, no matter
how busy your day gets. It’s about knowing that she deserves the love she gives everyone else
because you know she’s your everything.
In order to maintain a great relationship, we need to work on them. They are a lot like exercise.

If you want to be in great shape, you have to work out regularly. If you want to keep a great
relationship, you have to work at it. If you get in shape and then rest on your laurels without doing
any more exercise, you will get out of shape. If you work on a relationship, get it to a comfortable
level, and then relax without attending to it anymore, the relationship has the potential to get out of
shape. Both parties must work on it. You don’t know what the other person will do, so it’s
important to do your part. You say, “All I can do is my part. I can’t do my partner’s part, but I can
do mine.”

How do we make sure we are doing everything in our power to work on the relationship and keep it
healthy? A large part of this is through connections. In relationships, it’s often through romance.

A few years ago, I took a course called Organizational Psychology. It’s about giving psychological
help to companies. I distinctly remember my professor saying the companies either grow or they die.
They have to be doing one or the other; otherwise they stay the same. Relationships are lot like that.
We need to nourish them, we need to work on them, we need to spend time with them. There are
many things we can do, but we need to make the relationship a priority.

Sometimes, we might take friendships or marriages for granted. It’s a lot like physical health. We
can be in great physical shape and then think we don’t have to continue going to the gym. We all
know what’s going to happen with that. This is no different from couples keeping their relationships
in shape. When they don’t work on their relationship, they will begin to have problems. So no
matter what’s going on—if we have children, if we are moving, if we are starting a new career or
going back to school— our relationships still require time and effort. I know it takes two partners to
make a relationship work, but all we can do is do our part. We need to ask ourselves, “Am I the best
partner I can be?” And if the answer is yes, then it’s going to be a little easier to move forward if we
have to.

What are we doing today about our relationship? What are we doing this week? What are we doing
this year to make sure this relationship is getting our time and effort because if it isn’t, it’s not going
to do as well. It’s often why relationships falter: one of the two people in the relationship stops
making it a priority and focuses on other things, maybe other people, other activities, other interests,
and then the relationship begins to die. So let’s frighten our brains that we have to work on the
relationship and we can’t take it for granted. It takes effort, ongoing effort until the day the
relationship dies. We have to put effort into relationships to maintain them.

So what can we do to maintain that healthy relationship? What specifically can we do to make
relationships work? We need to do three things:

1. Make the relationship a priority.

2. Be kind to our partner or friend.

3. Engage in common activities together.

First, we make the relationship our priority by devoting time to it. Obviously to exercise and work
out, we have to make time to work out. To keep a successful relationship, we have to make time for
that relationship. If we don’t regularly connect with our partner or friend, that relationship is going
to begin to falter. We ask ourselves how much time we are spending with our partners. Are we
going on dates with them? Are we texting them? Are we calling them? Are we stopping and having
lunch with them? It’s very important to make sure we have time with our partners, with our friends,
because otherwise, like a flower unattended, the relationship will begin to wilt and eventually die.

Relationships take time. In working with couples and helping them build a healthy relationship, I
focus first on their having time together, including going on dates. Even when people have been
married for decades, they still need to go on dates, particularly if they have young kids. Most often,
a difficult time of marriage is when people have young kids at home and then they just don’t make
time for each other. So when I work with couples, I make sure they’re going on dates regularly, at
first once a week if they have to get a babysitter. They need to make sure they can say, “This is
something we have to look forward to.” With time, I get them to take a weekend away and then,
with a little planning, to go away for a week. It is very healthy for us when we are in a relationship
to get away for several hours or even days, spending time with just our partner.
I know it’s hard to do, particularly when there are children. But it is a very healthy choice because
children benefit when their parents are doing well; children don’t want parents that are arguing or
fighting. They want love in the family as much as the parents do.
The second important part in maintaining a healthy relationship is being kind and gentle with each
other. Couples may spend time together, but if they fight and argue, the relationship is not going to
thrive. It can be difficult to stay in an intimate relationship or friendship if too many harsh things
have happened.

When I work with couples, I set rules. It’s okay to talk about things, but once a partner is becoming
intense, it’s important to take a break. But couples get afraid that if they take a break they won’t talk
about the topic again, so they keep going. To address this concern and still lessen the tension, I
suggest they do something to reduce stress, such as a walk to get away from the situation, and then
agree on a time when they can talk about it again, such as in an hour or the next day. We can’t
continue the conversation in the heat of the battle. Once emotions get intense, a break is critical to
maintaining a healthy relationship, and we will continue the conversation after we get calm. Too
many couples just try to keep going through, thinking they’re finding a solution. They think they
will feel better and can resolve the issue when strong feelings are flying, but they don’t realize that
when we’re upset it’s a horrible time to keep going and try to resolve an issue. There are just too
many emotions, and often we can’t think logically.

It’s like trying to talk to someone who is drunk. We don’t try to have a meaningful conversation
with a drunk person, and when a person is angry, he or she often can’t think clearly. So if we give
the one dealing with intense feelings space and take some space for ourselves and say, “Let’s talk
about this tomorrow” or “Let’s take a break and get back together in hour,” we will feel better.

article continues after advertisement

Sometimes it is good to find a third party like a therapist to help us through problems, but it’s
important to stay calm and loving, no matter what. That is a great way to maintain a healthy
relationship because when we’re calm, we’re going to listen to the other person. We’re not going to
say derogatory things, and we’re more likely going to work through the issues that we have to work
through.

Issues or problems can come up, and they can be a bit challenging to work through. We may
disagree with our partners, so what should we do in such a case? Sometimes we have to make
decisions where we disagree. What do we do when we both agree to disagree? What are our
options? When we have to make a decision, we have three choices as a couple:

1. We can agree.

2. We can compromise.
3. We can take turns.

I use this all the time in therapy, and it’s a very effective way to navigate decisions when we have
disagreements. For example, we’re going to go on a vacation this year. The first option is to agree.
We can both agree that this year we’ll go to Hawaii for a vacation. Wouldn’t that be great? Yup,
that is great. This is an easy situation; we all know how to make decisions when we agree.

But let’s say, for example, I want to go to Hawaii but my partner wants to go to New York City.
What are we to do then? We can take the second option and compromise. Perhaps, we say, “Let’s
not go to New York or Hawaii this year; instead let’s go to Santa Fe.”

If we disagree, we could also take the third option and take turns. We could say, “We haven’t been
to Hawaii for a long time, so let’s go to Hawaii this year, and then next year, let’s go to New York
City.” If we agree to take turns, we have to honor them; we can’t try to talk our partner out of it next
year. Let’s be respectful to the other person and to ourselves, and respect means if we say
something we stick to our word. We agree to it.

It’s very simple to make decisions if we agree. When we disagree, we have to either compromise or
take turns because if we don’t, resentment is going to take hold. Fairness is a beautiful way to have
a relationship work well. When we both feel that we are being fair, we both take something away
from it, and then we feel good about our relationship. But if we aren’t trying to be fair and instead
are focused on winning, on putting the person down, and on getting our way, resentment builds, and
with time, resentment can turn into a loss of care to our partner, and we don’t want that.

When we began our relationship, we likely had things we liked to do together. Over time, we may
have grown so far apart that we no longer have common interests. If so, we need to try new things
and find activities to do together, because intimate relationships, like friendships, are built on
having similarities. We need to have things in common that we both enjoy doing because, if spend
time together in happy pursuits, we strengthen our relationship. We’ll have happiness and a fond
feeling for our partner, which makes our relationship healthy.

I had a friend who worked hard on developing his career, and he did not have much in common
with his wife anymore, so every week they took a day off together, and they just found things to do.
They tried different things until they found what they enjoyed doing together.

Because we are committed to our relationship, including friendship, we do need to make that effort
and find things we can do together that we both enjoy. This may involve a compromise. If only one
of us loves camping, maybe we could stay in a log cabin and we both could enjoy nature with a
little more comfort than camping in a tent. If one of us doesn’t like sports events, maybe we could
join a low-key sports group, such as co-ed volleyball, and have fun, make new friends, and spend
time together. This involves a give-and-take attitude and the openness to try new things.
There are numerous activities we can do with our partner if we want to maintain the relationship.
We have to have some things in common—we don’t have to do everything together; it’s fine to
have different interests. Some activities we do with our friends, and others we do with our partner.
We have to have some things that we do just with our partner. These things are ours and make us
say, “Wow, that was great to do together.” Like eating healthy food, engaging in fun activities with
our partner gives vitality to the relationship. If we infuse our relationship with love and the
memories of having good things to do together, it puts smiles on our faces that are going to make us
like our partner more and enjoy our relationship so much more.

To recap, we can do three things to maintain a great relationship. First, we have to make the
relationship a priority and to devote time to it and our partner or friend. Second, we need to be kind,
romantic, and loving in a relationship. Third, we develop and engage in activities we like to do
together so we look forward to spending time with our partner or with friends.

By following these three steps, you can develop a very loving relationship with your partner. If
you’re unhappy in your current relationship, ask your partner, “Are we doing these three things?
Are we spending time together, being loving, and creating fun memories together based on things
we both enjoy?” If not, figure out how to do that because relationships are worth it.

All we can do is our part; we can’t make our partner do his or her part. But if we do what we need
to do, then at least we’re going to feel good about ourselves. No matter what happens, we will be
able to say, “I’m capable of being a good partner. Maybe it won’t be with you, but I’m capable of
being a great partner.”

Sometimes our partners do change in a way that challenges the relationship. Sometimes they get
addictions or go with someone else; sometimes they have disorders that affect them in the long run.
So be it. All we can do is focus on our being a great partner. We take care of ourselves and are a
great partner so, no matter what happens, we can look in the mirror and say, ‘I like me because I
was a great partner in this relationship.” We’re going to be okay because we took care of ourselves;
that’s the ultimate focus. The second focus is having our partners participate with us in making this
a great relationship. We do our part, and that is going to make us feel good and happy.

Relationships take work, but it’s worth it for a life partner or awesome friend. And, we will attract
great people if we are great partners and friends, allowing us to be in wonderful and fulfilling
relationships. (Robert puff, phd).
Well, a very wise woman once told me, it doesn't matter the amount of time you put in before you
get married, but rather the effort you put into the marriage. effort is important in any relationship. In
one of the many self-help books I read growing up, there was a chapter about relationship bank
accounts (RBA). It tells about depositing and withdrawing from your relationships, just like a
regular bank account, except the difference is deposits tend to evaporate and withdrawals tend to
turn to stone. Meaning, you need to continually make small deposits into your most important
relationships to keep them in the positive. That’s why making the effort to spend time, and give
your attention to your partner is so important--just as it’s important to feel like you matter, and that
your significant other is making the effort to spend quality time with you, just as often.

Again, I am no expert in relationships, but for me, personally, effort is really what keeps the
two of us together. So, try listening to their stories more intently, or try to get them a gift here and
there to show them you care. One of my favorite ways to put effort into my relationship, is to go get
ice cream, then go on a drive through the canyon talking for hours and listening to music. I feel
valued and my partner feels valued. And that’s all you can really ask for in a relationship. Loving
someone isn’t like winning a prize that you can display on your shelf; it’s like a small campfire that
is just difficult enough to tend that it takes 2 people working at it in just the right amounts in order
to keep burning strong. I can’t tell you how many people I know who are either breaking up, broken
up, considering divorce, or gotten divorced, all because their spouse has either given up & stopped
caring about continuing to deserve their love & affection, or never really bothered in the first place.
I’ve even had long-term relationships where the woman I was with was assuming she was meeting
my needs (never checked, just assumed), and felt I wasn’t doing enough to meet their needs. And
needs can be anything from 1 or 2 big things to several small things; they’re still needs, no matter
the “size”, and no less important.

A loving relationship isn’t simply about whether or not you’re getting what you need; it’s first about
knowing, not assuming, but really knowing that your spouse is getting what they need emotionally
from you, THEN expressing whether or not you’re getting what you need. If you are saying
everything is fine, but they are saying their needs are not being met, guess what – NOTHING is
FINE! You aren’t holding up your end of the relationship. If this is you, and you say you don’t
understand what’s wrong with your relationship, then ASK YOUR PARTNER! They’ll gladly tell
you what is missing for them. If your partner asks you what your missing from them
emotionally/romantically, then bloody well have an answer ready, or take the time to find an answer
if you don’t have detailed suggestions. This is called COMMUNICATION, people. Oh, and don’t
just scoff at your spouse’s requests/suggestions, and don’t belittle them or push them aside as
though you “don’t need to go to that trouble”. That reveals the real issue in your relationship – you
don’t really give a shit about your partner or their needs, you’re just being a selfish prick. If your
spouse is a selfish prick, I can tell you right now that waiting several years to see if they’ll change is
a waste of your life; after 2 years, if there’s no change or progress, then ditch. Most relationship
therapists will not suggest divorce or splitting up; I feel that’s wrong. To suggest people keep
working at something that isn’t working & one spouse is “insane” (continuing to perform the same
actions and continuously expecting a particular reaction other than what they are actually getting
but refusing to try new actions), is way more damaging to both people, and is especially damaging
to the children if any are in the equation. Love is all you need AS A FOUNDATION; you still need
to put in the effort to build the home together. It takes 2 making that effort for a relationship to
work.
In essence, choosing a romantic partner is choosing a set of problems. Believing that being
compatible with your partner means everything should come naturally is a sure way to naturally end
any relationship you will have.

“Every [relationship] demands an effort to keep it on the right track; there is constant
tension…between forces that hold you together and those that tear you apart.” – John Gottman

The belief that relationship success should not need effort robs relationships of the fire they need to
burn. So many relationships turn their hot and passionate fire of love into ashes, just because the
couple believes that being in love means never having to do anything demanding.

This toxic belief shows up in two different ways:

1. Mind reading
Part of the no-effort relationship fairytale is the belief that couples can read each other’s minds.

My partner knows what I think, feel, and need, and I know the same for them.

The truth is, all couples are incapable of reading minds.

In Nicholas Epley’s book Mindwise, he asked couples to guess their partner’s self-worth, abilities,
and preferences on house chores on a scale from 1-5. He found that couples were accurate 44% of
the time, despite believing they were right 82% of the time.

Even more time together doesn’t help. Rather, longer term relationships “create an illusion of
insight that far surpasses actual insight.”

The quality of your relationship depends on your ability to understand your partner, and vice versa.
The secret to understanding each other better seems not to come from mind reading, but through the
hard work of putting our partners in a position where they can tell us their minds openly and
honestly.

It’s quite delusional to believe in mind reading. But it makes sense when many couples who believe
this also believe that a couple should share 100% of each other’s view on everything.
2. We Agree on Everything
This belief ties well with reading minds. If you can read each other’s mind, then you don’t need
communication; you can just assume your partner sees the world the way you do.

Even though you two speak the same language, you both grew up in a sea of different experiences.
You were given separate dictionaries on life. This makes it impossible to share ALL of each other’s
assumptions and expectations.
3. Love Requires Effort
A no-effort relationship is not a great relationship; it’s a doomed relationship. It takes effort to
communicate and understand each other. Love takes work. It takes work to expose and resolve
conflicting beliefs and expectations.

However, that doesn’t mean there is no “happily ever after.”

It’s more like, “they worked happily ever after.”

I think a lot of people are blind (or naive) to the fact that romantic love and relationships require
effort. When a relationship falls apart, certain things or realizations may happen. Perhaps it is that
you feel you no longer have anything in common with each other. Maybe you’re constantly arguing
with your significant other. Do you resent being in their presence more often than not? Have you
stopped feeling attraction toward your partner?

All these issues are salvageable. We can come back from each of them. You just have to agree to
put in the work! one day it stops feeling so rosy. You don’t like how you’re feeling in the
relationship now. Certain traits and characteristics you found quirky or captivating in your partner
are now leaving you irritated and frustrated.

Your partner is distant and you no longer know how to communicate with them. You believe it’s
only going to get worse. The bickering, picking at each others’ faults, a lack of gratitude for each
other.

It goes on and on. Until you decide you’ve had enough. “It wasn’t meant to be [this hard].”

How This Impacts Your Relationship

When the gauze of perception drops to reveal the reality of your relationship, many people are
stopped in their tracks. They no longer:

1. comprehend how to love this person

2. remember the reasons why they fell in love
3. feel connected to who they are dating
4. understand what the relationship brought to their life
5. want to work on their relationship
6. Once you’re open to the idea that it’s not all-love all-the-time, you may begin to shut down
in the relationship. Perhaps you believe it requires too much effort. So you cruise on auto
pilot, hoping it’s enough to satisfy your partner and your own needs. Save yourself being
hurt.
This is where it comes undone. You cannot ‘cruise’ in a relationship. You must show up every
single day. If you seriously want it to work, you gotta show up for yourself, and for your partner.

1. always find time for a date. This can be done by pencilling in time for a weekly date night.
Or, on a day off together, take your partner for a surprise outing. It always helps to have
some trusted cafes and restaurants on hand if you feel like eating out. Or, on a sunny day,
take advantage of the nice weather. Head to the beach or your favourite waterhole for the
day. Pack a basket with nibbles and snacks and you’re set.
2. show physical affection and utilise intimate touch. Hold hands when sat together at dinner.
Put an arm around their waist while walking. Hug for an extended time and really sink into
their embrace. Give them kisses throughout the day – not just when saying hello or
goodbye!
3. ask how their day was: a simple, but often underutilised question that is lost in your day-to-
day. This is great to ask when you finish work. This allows you both to unload stressed of
the day and reconnect through understanding.
4. be there for them: if you can tell that their vibe is off and they seem detached, it pays to ask
how they’re really feeling. Sometimes it is hard to tell someone what troubles you. So
opening up the line of communication may be the exact sign needed to express what’s
going on.
5. learn their love language: this may be a new idea to some. I’ve found great understanding
when looking at myself and my partner through the lens of a ‘love language’. The 5
languages are: words of affirmation, acts of service, receiving gifts, quality time, and
physical touch. Generally, your partner will speak a couple of these languages. So it pays to
learn more about the specifics of how they give and receive love.
I think a key part of having a healthy relationship is that you are present.

By this I mean you are conscious of your partner’s feelings. Understanding when the relationship
requires more work in a certain area. Resolving to sort arguments out through listening, compassion,
and understanding. Taking pride in the small acts of effort that make your relationship beautiful.
Being active and not passive in your love.

If you learn to see joy in the fact that your love requires nurturing to be fruitful, and that this can
take on any form you like, you should feel a transformation take place. A small mindset shift that
frees you from feeling like a victim.

The quality of your loving in is in the hands of both you and your partner. Your relationship is
entirely up to you. You cannot expect to see an improvement in your relationship if you are not
willing to put in the ‘work’

***
CONS

Chemistry is without question the most important thing in a relationship. In the context of
relationships, chemistry is a simple "emotion"[1] that two people get when they share a special
connection. It is not necessarily sexual. It is the impulse making one think "I need to see this
[other] person again" - that feeling of "we click".[2] It is very early in one's relationship that they
can intuitively work out whether they have positive or negative chemistry.

While the actual definition of chemistry, its components, and its manifestations are fairly
vague, this is a well documented concept. Some people describe chemistry in metaphorical
terms, such as "like cookie dough and vanilla ice cream", or "like a performance".[4] It can
be described in the terms of mutual feelings - "a connection, a bond or common feeling
between two people", or as a chemical process - "[it] stimulates love or sexual
attraction...brain chemicals are definitely involved".[3] While chemistry has been described
as "that romantic spark between [two people]", the term "spark" in the context of
relationships is as vague as "chemistry", and therefore is not particularly useful in a
definition.[1] It has also been described as "intangible, unspoken [and] energetic".[5]
Chemistry is an unconscious decision, informed by a complex blend of criteria.[2]

Some of the core components of chemistry are: "non-judgment, similarity, mystery,

attraction, mutual trust, and effortless communication"[3] Chemistry can be described as
the combination of "love, lust, infatuation, and a desire to be involved intimately with
someone".[2

Research by Kelly Campbell, Ph.D., suggests that "not everyone experiences chemistry".
She decided that "chemistry occurred most often between people who are down-to-earth
and sincere". This is because "if a person is comfortable with themselves, they are better
able to express their true self to the world, which makes it easier to get to know them...even
if perspectives on important matters differed." Sharing similarities is also deemed essential
to chemistry as "feeling understood is essential to forming relational bonds."[3]. There are
various psychological, physical and emotional symptoms of having good chemistry with
another person. It has been described as a "combination of basic psychological arousal
combined with a feeling of pleasure". The nervous system gets aroused, causing one to get
adrenaline in the form of "rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath, and sensations of excitement
that are often similar to sensations associated with danger". Other physical symptoms
include "blood pressure go[ing] up a little, the skin...flush[ing], the face and ears...turn[ing]
red and...[a] feeling of weakness in the knees". One can feel a sense of obsession over the
other person, longing for "the day [when they return] to that person". One can also
uncontrollably smile whenever thinking about the other person. Dating coach Evan Marc
Katz suggests that "chemistry is one of the most misleading indicators of a future
relationship. Chemistry predicts nothing but chemistry." This is because chemistry can
make people blind to actual incompatibilities or warning signs. Psychologist Laurie Betito
notes that arranged marriages actually do quite well in terms of relationship satisfaction,
and this is because "a spark can build based on what you have in common. You can grow
into love, but you grow out of lust."[7]

Neil Clark Warren argues that physical chemistry is important because "couples who don't
share strong chemistry may have additional problems during the ups and downs of a life
together." Like Betito, he suggests not ruling someone out on the first date due to lack of
chemistry. "But," he adds, "if by the second or third date you don’t feel a strong inclination
to kiss the other person, be near him, or hold his hand, you’re probably never going to feel
it."[8] April Masini likewise says that chemistry is a strong predictor of relationship success.
She suggests that chemistry comes and goes, and it's important to actively cultivate it
because it can help couples deal with future conflicts.[

The "honeymoon phase" is actually a real thing. It's called limerence.

Limerence refers to the early stages of love, which can last anywhere from two months to 10 years.
Besides dying for the 10-year plan, I was still intrigued to know more. Apparently, this is the time
when two people are so straight-up nuts over each other, they cannot think of anything else or even
make rational thoughts. This phase is absolutely critical for a relationship to work for the long term.
In order for you to move on to the next phase, the "trust-building phase," you both have to know
that you achieved the limerence phase.

Chemistry has absolutely nothing to do with looks. Having the option to be with someone
ridiculously hot and yet feeling no spark is honestly devastating. It has happened to us all. I'd also
be willing to bet we have all also experienced mad chemistry with someone who isn't our textbook
type. How many couples do you know who look insanely into each other, but yet in the looks
department aren't quite equal? Chemistry does not discriminate.

You absolutely must have chemistry from the get-go. Reread the part about limerence above if you
need a refresher. That phase has to come before all of the other phases. Chemistry lays the
foundation of your desire for each other. Limerence is what separates you from being lovers or
being just friends. If you move straight to the trust-building phase, you cannot go back to the
limerence phase. One simply must come before the other.
Chemistry is just the beginning of what's to come. When you FINALLY have this insane chemistry
with someone, you want to not only keep it, but also to grow it into a full-fledged relationship. Now
is when you start to develop respect, communication, and trust in your relationship. These things
come from two people who are so chemically drawn to each other, they have no choice in their
mind but to make it work, so that is exactly what they do. They take the time to make it work, rather
than throw it away when things get hard, because they know and remember the initial chemistry and
the chemistry they still have. They just can't live without that.

It's more than just physical. Yes, chemistry does feed the desire to be around each other and all over
each other all the time, but the type of chemistry that will lead to the best relationships is more than
just sex. It's feeling excited to do just about anything with them, even the mundane tasks like doing
the laundry. Everything is just better when that special person is with you.

Chemistry on the other hand, represents the emotional connection present when you’re with each
other. Two people who have a high degree of chemistry have emotional make-ups and personalities
that bring out warm, fuzzy emotions in the other, creating a kind of positive feedback loop through
which they continue to make each other feel better and better. When you have a high degree of
chemistry with someone, they monopolize your thoughts and/or your free time. You’ll stay up
talking until the sun comes up and not even feel like an hour went by. You’ll hope that every call or
text is him/her. And it will be. You’ll walk through life constantly wondering, “What would he/she
think about X?” where X is a song, a bird, a walk through the park, a traffic jam, or a tenuous visit
to the dentist. A lack of chemistry simply results in a lack of emotional intensity. Things just feel
kind of dead and boring when you are together. A relationship with high compatibility but little
chemistry is likely to be a boring yet convenient series of meetings and conversations, dry and dull
until both parties simply stop caring and drift apart.

Although being non-judgmental facilitates chemistry, my research has also shown that similarity
between people is crucial. Upon first meeting a person, if we perceive at least some similarity, we
may feel more at ease disclosing information about ourselves, because we believe the other person
will understand us. Feeling understood is essential to forming relational bonds. So in terms of
similarity, there can never be too much, if our goal is to develop satisfying partnerships.

Another relevant variable is the degree to which we disclose information about ourselves. The
theory of social penetration describes that at the beginning of a relationship, individuals tend to
discuss a wide array of topics. If this initial discussion is rewarding, they begin to disclose more
personal information. Although disclosures are good for relationship development, revealing too
much too soon is not the best strategy. Even in long-lasting marriages, partners tend to balance self-
disclosure with some degree of secrecy. It is perhaps this element of secrecy or mystery that
maintains the excitement within friendships and romantic relationships.
research indicated that attraction is relevant to friendships as well, but to a lesser extent. Taken
together, the core components of both friendship and romantic chemistry included non-judgment,
similarity, mystery, attraction, mutual trust, and effortless communication.

So are some people more prone to experiencing chemistry? I originally suspected that extroverted
people would encounter chemistry most often. Extroverts tend to thrive on positive interactions and
seek out such exchanges. They are additionally at ease in social situations, which makes other
people comfortable in their presence. Surprisingly, my prediction was not supported by the research.
Instead, I found that people were more likely to experience friendship chemistry if their
personalities were open (e.g., adventurous, imaginative, and emotionally in-tune), conscientious
(e.g., competent, disciplined, hard-working), and agreeable (e.g., friendly, cooperative, and
considerate). Openness and conscientiousness were key determinants of romantic chemistry as well,
but agreeableness was less important.

My studies also revealed that not everyone experiences chemistry. I asked individuals why they did
not think it had happened to them. Most of these people did not know, but some identified specific
reasons including not having the personality. for it (e.g., being too shy); lacking trust in other people,
which made them closed off; not having the opportunity to meet people; and not meeting people
with similar interests. What does it really mean to have chemistry with someone? Most people
aren’t sure exactly what it is, but they know it when they feel it. If you have good chemistry with
someone, such as on a first date, you’ll want to pursue more time with him or her. If there is bad
chemistry, then it’s unlikely you’ll want to see each other again.

Whatever the case, most singles – almost 66% of our respondents – said that chemistry is the single
most important part of a first date; more so than even initial compatibility. While a couple may not
be perfect on paper, a first date may reveal a lot more than what is in a profile.

In fact, almost 44% of singles said that if they “felt comfortable being themselves” it meant the first
date was a success. And listen up, ladies: 49% of men said that being able to feel comfortable as
themselves on a first date was a sure sign of a good one.

On occasion, there will be times where a first date will reveal no chemistry whatsoever. While this
isn’t a bad thing, it might mean that one person wasn’t comfortable opening up, or perhaps there
was mutual defensiveness on both sides.

The comparison may seem a little cold, but let’s face it: first dates are very much like interviews.
Exude confidence, be comfortable in your own skin, be interested and kind to your first date, and
chances are you’ll get a second one. However, there is a limited time window in which most people
decide on whether or not they’ll want to see someone again.

According to our respondents, 44% of women and 46% of men decide within the first twenty
minutes whether or not a second date is in the cards. The good news is that since a previous survey
in 2004, both men and women are gradually deciding later and later in the date as to whether or not
they want to see each other again. For example, in 2004, almost 80% of guys decided whether or
not to take a woman out again within the first 15 minutes!

Dating Material or Relationship Material?

If the chemistry and compatibility is right, most men and women start thinking about when they
want see each other again. However, are they merely thinking about a second date, or are they
thinking about a relationship?

Hold on to your hats, guys: 45% reflected on a first date and then asked yourselves, “Is she
relationship material?” On the other hand, almost 51% of women are more likely to consider
whether they want a second date or not, while 39% asked themselves if a guy was relationship
material.

Even though it seems a lot can happen within the first hour of a date that makes a single decide
whether or not they want to see someone again, the best thing to do is just slow it down. Dating, and
much like the relationships that can follow, are marathons; not sprints.

With all the complex intricacies that can occur on in a first date, it’s tough to expect perfection. If
we let our guards down a bit and relax, have fun, be comfortable in our own skin and make our
dates comfortable in theirs, you’ll never know what kind of surprises you'll discover.

Everyone talks about chemistry as that magic ingredient we all need in a relationship but can't quite
quantify. We use words like attraction, connection, knowing, vibes, or fit to describe what it feels
like. But what is it, really? And is chemistry always a good thing?

We hear people say, "there just wasn't any chemistry," to explain why their first date won't turn into
a second. On the other end of the spectrum, people might say, "there was so much chemistry right
away" or "we both just felt it." Interaction progresses from there, sometimes leading to successful,
happy relationships, and other times to years of difficult interactions.

Most people who are dating or in relationships agree that the feeling of chemistry is real, but not
everyone places the same value on it. Some take a bottom-line "gotta have it" attitude, while others
are more circumspect. Some people don't even see it as a good thing initially.

Below are several types of compatibility we often characterize as chemistry—some being more
important than others—along with suggestions for ways to take a closer look at what's driving these
feelings.
1. Physical attraction

Do you believe in love at first sight? It might be more accurate to call it chemistry at first sight.
Appearance is one of the most prevalent catalysts for chemistry. Good looks can arouse desire in
almost anyone. Our cultural conditioning instills these values, so we respond unconsciously to
others on the basis of how they look. When under the spell of sexiness, we don't realize that
physical attraction is what's driving our interest and instead identify it as the ever-elusive chemistry.

Here's what you need to know:

Enjoy the physical attraction but don't move ahead too fast. Take time to assess what else is on offer.
With time, the allure of a purely physical attraction will wear off and you will be able to see the
whole person more clearly.

2. Codependency

Codependency occurs when a person relies on the emotional connection to their partner or
relationship to an unhealthy extent. They feel as if they can't survive without them. It’s sometimes
called "relationship addiction." One example of this type of relationship is a codependent involved
with a narcissist. Though desperately unhappy, the codependent sticks around because of his/her
addiction, which remains unacknowledged and instead gets called chemistry.

Here's what you need to know:

Codependents can learn and change. If these issues are causing distress in your life, find a therapist
or counselor who can help guide you through the growth process necessary to change your
relationship patterns.

3. Shared purpose

We meet someone new and suddenly find ourselves discussing our purpose or mission in life. If
we're both on the same page, we're off and running. It's a heady connection for sure. Just the fact
that we are willing to be so open right away seems to indicate chemistry. Our shared passions and
interests quickly form a strong foundation for continuing involvement. Having someone on board
who encourages you to pursue your goals in life is one of the loftiest aspects we can hope to find in
any relationship.

Here's what you need to know:

Not many red flags here, at least initially. Having a life purpose that your partner supports can feed
a lasting love. Just make sure you stay focused and keep your purpose alive with your own energy
as well.

4. Personal growth

People who have been in stagnant relationships where they felt stuck often attract this type of
chemistry. It's a relief to find someone who acknowledges their own shortcomings and is willing to
work on ways of healing and growing. Hallelujah! These couples usually get to work right away,
providing feedback and insights intended to help their partners grow. Sharing self-help books,
online resources, and even therapists, they can make great leaps together toward creating more
fulfilling lives.

Here's what you need to know:

The main caveat here is to make sure your connection has more aspects to it than just personal
growth. All work—which is what growth often feels like—with no play can make for an exhausting
relationship. Go through "your stuff" as it comes up, but also make time for more light-hearted
ways of relating.

5. Courting the muse

This type of chemistry happens so often we have a phrase for it—it's called "courting the muse." A
mutual desire to escalate each other's imagination characterizes this inspiring connection. Artists
thrive on it, along with entrepreneurs and others who like to "dream big." It can be quite a high for
both parties initially. If it endures over time, the productivity and joy it can create are unlimited.
Think Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera. But this chemistry can also fizzle out, or point to a connection
other than romance, such as a collaborative partnership or friendship.

Here's what you need to know:

Only time will tell here. As with many types of chemistry, it's best to enjoy the connection without
making assumptions about the nature of it too soon. Let it play out and try to remain conscious and
curious as it does.

6. Past-life agreement
This is the most "woo-woo" type of chemistry on this list. It involves two parties who believe they
made an agreement in a past life to meet up in this one. Their goal is to resolve issues from their
past life together in order to clear a karmic debt. While this may sound far-fetched, the concept of a
relationship being fated is actually quite a familiar theme in literature, and many of us have had
similar feelings IRL. But beware. So-called past-life relationships can feel almost compulsory, so
much so that we are afraid to leave.

Here's what you need to know:

The potential for physical or emotional abuse can be enormous under these circumstances, so the
best advice is to steer clear of this line of thinking. Instead, look for healthy connections in the here
and now.

7. Sexual attraction

No discussion of chemistry would be complete without this type—the most compelling but also
potentially the most troublesome. When two people discover a lusty connection, it can feel
irresistible and that's where the problem lies. Early on, the literal chemistry—hormones released in
our bodies—set off "in love" fantasies that have little basis in reality. Later, sexual chemistry keeps
some couples involved long after they need to split. Yet, sexual chemistry also plays a vital role in
sustaining healthy relationships. Happy couples sometimes refer to it as the "glue" that keeps them
together.

Here's what you need to know:

Try to keep your wits about you, especially in the early stages of the relationship. Know that
hormones are going to keep you from thinking straight, so don't believe your fantasies. Instead,
check out what values you share IRL and make a point of building a solid foundation from them.
Then sex can be the icing on the cake

ARTIST WITH MINORITY BACKGROUND SHOULD PUBLISH ART

PUBLICLY

PRO
Public art matters to me because I see it as a platform for civic dialogue and as the most democratic
of art forms. When done well, a public artwork engages citizens in conversation that can vary from
understanding historical and cultural backgrounds, to driving attachment to place and social
cohesion. In a world struggling with new ways to connect, public art can make public spaces more
approachable.
Nationally, I have the honor to see how public art can drive cultural understanding, as in the
ongoing discussion surrounding confederate memorials and monuments; and locally, how it can
reinforce civic pride in residents. From this perspective, I also see that there is a continued need to
provide tools for those making public art happen in their communities—tools that can help advocate
for why public art matters.

Five Reasons Why Public Art Matters

Art in public spaces plays a distinguishing role in our country’s history and culture. It reflects and
reveals our society, enhances meaning in our civic spaces, and adds uniqueness to our communities.
Public art humanizes the built environment. It provides an intersection between past, present, and
future; between disciplines and ideas. Public art matters because our communities gain cultural,
social, and economic value through public art.

1. Economic Growth and Sustainability. By engaging in public art as a tool for growth and
sustainability, communities can thrive economically. Seventy percent of Americans believe
that the “arts improve the image and identity” of their community.
2. Attachment and Cultural Identity. Public art directly influences how people see and connect
with a place, providing access to aesthetics that support its identity and making residents
feel appreciated and valued. Aesthetics is one of the top three characteristics why residents
attach themselves to a community.
3. Artists as Contributors. Providing a public art ecosystem supports artists and other creatives
by validating them as important contributors to the community. Artists are highly
entrepreneurial. They are 3.5 times more likely than the total U.S. work force to be self-
employed.
4. Social Cohesion and Cultural Understanding. Public art provides a visual mechanism for
understanding other cultures and perspectives, reinforcing social connectivity with others.
Seventy-three percent of Americans agree that the arts “helps me understand other cultures
better.”
5. Public Health and Belonging. Public art addresses public health and personal illness by
reducing stress, providing a sense of belonging, and addressing stigmas towards those with
mental health issues. Public art is noted as slowing pedestrians down to enjoy their space
and providing a positive impact on mood.

The purpose of public art is not only to enrich the community and improve our quality of
life through its ability to enrich an environment, but also to ignite the imagination,
encourage thought and to prompt discourse. Public art benefits the community through
placemaking, bringing people together, and can be used as a tool in economic development.

According to the 2013 ACTION survey, over one-third of San Luis Obispo County
residents attended a gallery show, visual arts exhibit, or other type of similar art activity,
showing that there is a high demand for public art. However, a majority said they were
concerned about access to cultural opportunities in their community, demonstrating a need
for greater opportunities to engage with art. Providing a greater awareness of current artistic
endeavors, as well as creating new opportunities for public art will benefit everyone.

Since the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and a seemingly
continuous stream of unarmed African American men who have died in “officer-involved
shootings,” the violent consequences of an unresolved history of race relations have largely
defined the past two years of public discourse in the United States, crystallized most
poignantly in the efforts of the Black Lives Matter Movement. Of the countless lenses
we’ve adopted for this nationwide racial reckoning, art is one we might not typically think
of.

How can art help us make sense of these complex histories? The short answer is that the
visual—what we see—matters: one need only consider the prominent role in recent debates
played by photographs of the Ferguson riots, cell phone footage of police and civilian
encounters, or symbols like the Confederate Flag. There is of course a precedent for
understanding the tumultuous events of the day surrounding race and ethnicity through art.
Take, for example, the work highlighted in the Brooklyn Museum’s recent “Witness: Art
and Civil Rights in the Sixties” or Swiss-artist Pamela Rosenkranz’s massive installation
visualizing Northern Europe’s racial homogeneity at this year’s Venice Biennale.

For the long answer, we turn to our participants, who help us work through the relationship
between museums, art history, and the social realities of racial prejudice and identity today.
Given the complexities of identity in a global era—the boundlessness of individual
diasporic and transcultural identities—how does contemporary art challenge our institutions
and art history? How do we respond to artists who appropriate from groups regularly
underrepresented in the mainstream art world? And what is the potential of art to impact the
way we view and address racial and ethnic identity here and globally?

What follows is an edited version of the conversation, moderated by Tani.

Byron Kim’s Synecdoche (1991-present)   

Byron Kim’s Synecdoche (1991-present)
ET: Could you each identify a specific artwork that has influenced your writing practice or
has impacted the way you think about race and ethnic identity in visual culture?

RW: I have two. The first is kind of a classic, Byron Kim’s Synecdoche (1991-present)
included in the ’93 Whitney Biennial. It’s a grid of over 400 painted squares, each of which
match someone’s skin tone. For me it’s a very dramatic piece and an elegant idea that
explodes the false duality we’re often given: that art that deals with race can’t be conceptual
or can’t be minimalist or can’t be engaged with other formal qualities. The second piece is
by the artist Dread Scott, On the Impossibility of Freedom in a Country Founded on Slavery
and Genocide ( ), a performance in which he took on the role of a ’60s civil rights
demonstrator and placed himself in front of a firehose. It was an extremely powerful piece
because it coincided with the demonstrations in Ferguson and the start of the Black Lives
Matter movement. Although he’d been planning it for months, the piece would have been
prescient at any time in the last 50 years because of the state of race relations in America. It
broke down that barrier between what is past and what is living.

JL: I had my first encounter with bell hooks’s book Art on My Mind in college. In it, she
analyzes a photograph by Lorna Simpson, Waterbearer. It was one of the first photos that I
remember emotionally responding to and the first time I came to think about the ways in
which art criticism could serve some type of political purpose. When I think about that
photograph, it represents a moment when I think my consciousness was raised. As cliché as
it sounds, that’s an artwork that will always remind me of how I came to this research and
this practice.

AV: I’ve found it valuable to learn about what it means to be contemporary outside of the
places that dominate that discourse. Inhotim, a museum in Brazil, was very influential for
me as a different cultural paradigm. It was built with the Neo-Concretists—Brazilian
conceptual artists—at its center, both physically and art historically. The historical narrative
is framed by Brazil, and non-Brazilian artists are integrated with respect to the ideas that
were established by that generation of Brazilian artists. The work of these artists,
particularly Helio Oiticica and Lygia Clark, has been really important to me in terms of
dealing with the social and the ephemeral. But in general, I’ve been very informed by
various kinds of conceptual and postconceptual work of the ’60s and ’70s, from the
proponents of Arte Povera to artists like David Hammons, who use everyday materials to
talk about the experience of people who don’t have power in the system. It’s really
important to me to try and understand how that can be explained.

The Door (Admissions Office)

David Hammons

The Door (Admissions Office), 1969

Brooklyn Museum

ET: Thinking about these individual works and projects, what do you see as the relationship
between art history, race, and visual culture?

AV: I think it’s too big a question to answer. That’s like asking, “how do you define human
beings and things that they do?” There is a real resistance within the framework of art
history to address anything modern and contemporary that has to do with cultural
specificity or ethnic identity outside of the European experience.

ET: From my perspective, there’s almost a generational resistance among art historians to
talking about race and ethnicity in the wake of the ’90s. Why is that?

AV: Well, the contemporary academy, as it’s structured today, was created during the
imperial period and continues to exist to protect and preserve those structures of power. I
think that’s the main issue, more than any individual resistance to change. It’s the system
itself that’s not prepared to change.

RW: To build off of that, in my conversations with art historians, critics, and others in the
art world, there is a deep resistance to acknowledging race and racial construction as a
reality; racial disparities as a reality; white supremacy as a reality. I think this is doubly
ironic because, as you were mentioning, Anu, at the very instance that museums and the
whole practice of art history was being founded in the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe,
our modern racial hierarchies were being created.
JL: When you asked the question the first word that came to my mind was antagonism. I
think the relationship between race and visual culture is an antagonistic relationship that
primarily serves the interests of the established canon.

“In the art world, there is a deep resistance to acknowledging race and racial construction as
a reality.”
ET: Could that antagonism be a productive friction? I’m wondering if you can think of any
projects that use that antagonism effectively?

AV: I think Franklin Sirmans has been doing incredible things at LACMA since he was
appointed head of contemporary art; take their current exhibition of Noah Purifoy. As an
artist, Purifoy asked these classic activist questions of whether art as protest, or art as
politics, even belonged in the institutional world. That show speaks to how a museum that
represents a diverse population, funded by taxpayer dollars from that population, can adjust
its mandate as an encyclopedic museum (despite originating in these kinds of imperialist
frameworks) in order to be more accessible to the people that it really should be serving.
It’s always a conflict, it’s always a challenge; there are only a few institutions that are doing
that consistently (the Brooklyn Museum, for example).

From the Point of View of the Little People

Noah Purifoy

From the Point of View of the Little People, 1994

"Noah Purifoy: Junk Dada" at LACMA, Los Angeles (2015)

ET: I’m thinking about your location in L.A., where many artists who have been engaged
with the avant-garde for decades are now just getting their due.

AV: That’s a little bit different. Living artists like Charles Gaines and Mark Bradford are
being recognized but they’re not necessarily being historicized. Purifoy is 20 years senior to
Charles Gaines and he’s no longer alive, so this is a pivotal moment for an artist—when
they go from being a contemporary artist to being a historical artist. And how is that history
written? It is very exciting to see a show like this where the history of a black artist is being
written by a black curator and is happening in this institution, but it’s still a very fraught
process.

“This is a pivotal moment for an artist—when they go from being a contemporary artist to
being a historical artist. And how is that history written?”
JL: Anu, you mentioned funding and how this process of historicization is fiscally
supported and sustained… A part of me is asking: as much as it’s important to have the
administrators inside the institutions (curators, registrars, etc.), how are we thinking about
people in those organizations that are funding our arts and culture nonprofits?

RW: Yes. To build on this idea of who’s inside institutions, I do think we have to talk about
race and class being very intertwined here, and how the idea of being a curator (until very
recently in museum history) was essentially an aristocratic job. Major institutions were
more or less untouched by a lot of the political and social upheavals over the last 50, 60, 70
years, and art history as a discipline is very much behind the rest of the world in that respect.
So to have our eyes on the long view of how art history will be written, how museums
accept or don’t accept certain artists, we’re absolutely going to have to talk about the
curators, the museum directors, the funders, and all levels of these institutional practices.

“My work as a critic is about creating “primary source documents”—a first pass at making
history: looking at the current state of world history and seeing where art fits in.”
ET: I want to get back to the distinction between contemporary and “historical” artists.
How might we “flip the percentages,” to borrow Anu’s earlier term?

RW: From a personal standpoint, flipping the percentages and the canon are not personally
that interesting to me. Big museums are going to collect what they’re going to collect. Right
now, “protest art” and “activist art” have a sort of social cachet. What I’m really interested
in is reaching communities that are engaged with this work—communities that are
interested in social movement histories not as museum objects, but as living histories.

JL: I’m also thinking about the ways in which we create multiple voices. I was recently
talking to an artist, Kameelah Rasheed, about the ways history has been interpreted to be a
linear entity, and I think that young curators of color are doing the work of crafting this
nonlinear canon. They are interested in bringing to the forefront more aggressively
contemporary artists of color who may not necessarily find themselves exhibited in larger
museums. For me, this is equally as important and shouldn’t be ignored.

AV: My work as a critic is about creating “primary source documents”—a first pass at
making history: looking at the current state of world history and seeing where art fits in. For
example, how does something like the recent controversy over artist Vanessa Place, who
tweeted Margaret Mitchell’s novel Gone With the Wind (known for its overt racism), fit in
with the politics of Black Lives Matter? How does someone like Charles Gaines fit in?

Faces, Set #4: Stephan W. Walls

Charles Gaines

Faces, Set #4: Stephan W. Walls, 1978

Hammer Museum

ET: In an ideal world, if you had unlimited resources and could put together your own
institution, what would you do? How could museums better serve their audiences?

RW: As you pointed out, Ellen, we complain a lot about institutions. But I think what we’re
really complaining about is the social realities that they reflect.

AV: I would make a diaspora museum. As a South Asian in the U.S., we don’t have
museums that are culturally specific and contemporary serving our community (I’m not
black and I’m not Asian according to U.S. institutions, though it’s different in the U.K.), so
I’ve had to figure out how to make another space and it’s an exciting challenge that’s part
of what inspires me to stay engaged. What does an institution look like that is neither
culturally specific nor pretending to be universal in a way that is homogenizing? Think
about who our audiences are. Just look at a city like Los Angeles: people who are third-
generation Chicano in L.A. have a cultural specificity that comes from having Mexican
heritage, but they’re not Mexicans, and they have more in common with second-generation
Koreans from L.A., in many ways, than they do with someone who was born in Chiapas.
That is not something that museums know how to reflect yet.

“We complain a lot about institutions. But I think what we’re really complaining about is
the social realities that they reflect.”
ET: Jessica, I’m wondering if you could talk a little about the ARTS.BLACK blog and your
relationship with audience as you imagine it to be, ideally.

JL: ARTS.BLACK launched in December 2014. For my co-editor and I, it came from the
matter of who isn’t getting published. There are numerous instances of extremely
problematic reviews in the mainstream art press, such as recent press about Alma Thomas,
which make us ask how these artists are written about. How would these reviews differ if
written by an author who might reflect or share a certain background with Alma? We’re
thinking primarily about criticality from writers who identify as black.

RW: One thing I really appreciate about ARTS.BLACK is that it defies the “culture of
politeness” that pervades the art criticism world, a culture that doesn’t really address
disagreements, especially around politics. Until very recently, you would never have
another platform or another writer actually challenge such a problematic review and take
that racism to task. This is a very new development and I think it’s really important. We do
need to have difficult conversations; the culture of politeness in the art criticism world is
just another way to silence voices that are not allowed.

“I don’t mind telling you this is wrong, and then I also don’t mind showing you what a
reasonable critique could look like.”
ET: Jessica, in your widely cited article “Criticism’s Blackout,” you ask, “Where are all the
Black arts critics?” You bring up the term “accountability,” which for me relates to what
Ryan alluded to: the need for a system of checks and balances where, as a field of writers,
we hold each other accountable for omissions and oversights (purposeful or accidental).
This is not to suggest that culturally specific platforms like yours are watchdog
organizations, but I do think it’s important to have a venue where this is a priority

JL: I actually like this word “watchdog.” The work of ARTS.BLACK is to say, all right,
Blake Gopnik, or Jessica Dawson in the Village Voice, this was wrong, I don’t mind telling
you this is wrong, and then I also don’t mind showing you what a reasonable critique could
look like.

AV: We have right now a condition where everyone has a cultural agenda except for white
people. And it’s very easy to dismiss us because relentlessly you hear again and again—
Ryan mentioned a number of recent reviews that have been very problematic in terms of
race—the backlash is always from predominantly white writers, curators, directors, and
board members—people in positions of power who are very quick to dismiss any criticism
as being motivated in some way by something impure or self-serving.

ET: Ryan, I really want to ask you about Joe Scanlan...

RW: During the last Whitney Biennial in 2014, Joe Scanlan, a white male artist, was
critically acclaimed for his contribution, a performance piece where he was hiring and
reproducing the images of black women to create a fictional artist named Donelle Woolford.
My friend Angela Kim (who co-authored a piece in The New Inquiry also criticizing
Scanlan) and I were joking that the only way this could turn out well is if Scanlan was
himself a fiction, an invention. So in this piece for Hyperallergic, I played out that idea and
wrote: “it’s time to put this project to rest: I created Joe Scanlan.” And of course this idea
has some truth to it, in that whiteness is a fiction and masculinity is a fiction. The many
insecurities and strange ideas that Scanlan held in order to conceive this project are
absolutely worth examining: he talked about how he made the piece because he felt that
artists of color were somehow getting an unfair advantage in the art world since they were
becoming “trendy” in the late ’90s/early 2000s. So the piece was really an attempt to poke a
hole in that logic, and to poke a hole into the psyche of the white male artist and see what
was there.

Sharrette
Donelle Woolford

Sharrette, 2010

Galerie Martin Janda

ET: I wanted to end with a quote that I pulled from an exhibition called “Ruffneck
Constructivists,” which was curated in 2014 at the ICA Philadelphia by Kara Walker. It
featured work by 11 artists, including William Pope.L, Arthur Jafa, Kendell Geers, and
Deana Lawson. In the catalog she writes that “works in this show don’t communicate
straight politics. They don’t agitate for social change or advocate solutions. Ruffneck
constructivists take as a given that art doesn’t need to be told how to behave.” It highlights
what we haven’t yet discussed, which is that when we enter the arena of racial politics
there’s a way in which we expect artworks to behave a certain way, to address those politics.
And on the flip side, we might ask whether or not there is some sort of freedom in not
behaving a certain way in terms of what’s expected of you. Do any of you care to respond?

JL: I enjoyed that exhibition and, for me, this is a million-dollar existential question. I don’t
know if the assumption that art should “behave” is ever going to go away, but personally, I
think art is going to exist in multiplicities, and an artist should never have to assert some
type of sociopolitical commentary through their work (although it’s my hope that artists do
that). This relates to Michelle Wright’s recent Artforum essay on the physics of black art, in
which she talks about what blackness writ large is—the tensions of existing within the
hyphen, and how that affects one’s responsibility as a culture-maker.

“But when art is really working, it draws you in through visual interest, through curiosity
about who made it, what it’s doing, what it is, and it leads you to discover meaning in the
work and in the world that you had never seen before.”
RW: I agree. I think that, ideally, terms like activism and social change have expansive
meanings, and the reason we have conversations like this is because issues of race are
ultimately issues of power. What we’re trying to move towards is a world where the power
dynamics don’t limit people, so that we’re not limited by race, we’re not limited by class
and gender, but we’re actually able to express our fullest selves within those multiple
identities. I think those are the stakes within a conversation like this.

AV: I’m not that interested in how art can be used to serve a concrete political end because
there are other methodologies that are more effective for that purpose. Art is best suited to
helping people broaden their understanding and worldview, and to think differently about
everything. The art that engages me the most is the art whose politics are material or formal,
and those politics ground the strategy for conveying its message. For example, the
exhibition in 2011 for Pacific Standard Time, “Now Dig This!,” was such a great show in
that way: it was about African-American artists in L.A. in the ’60s and ’70s, but the politics
of the show were much less about openly talking about conflict and disenfranchisement and
much more about articulating these ideas through the forms of the work in incredibly
powerful ways. Sometimes when you talk about these issues, people who are not prepared
to have that conversation tend to shut down. But when art is really working, it draws you in
through visual interest, through curiosity about who made it, what it’s doing, what it is, and
it leads you to discover meaning in the work and in the world that you had never seen
before.

Untitled (Man and mirror) (from Kitchen Table Series)

Carrie Mae Weems

Untitled (Man and mirror) (from Kitchen Table Series), 1990

Guggenheim Museum

Untitled
Shirin Neshat

Untitled, 1995
Repetto Gallery

Our participants in their own words:

Anuradha Vikram is a Los Angeles-based writer, curator, and educator.

Most of my work deals with the representation of diverse perspectives among artists,
predominantly contemporary, but I also work in modern and increasingly early modern art
history as well. In terms of how my work fits in with this conversation, my motivation is to
flip the percentages of representation of the artists that I work with. Most large institutions
work with 75% white artists and 25% artists of color, and I try to invert that ratio in my
work.

Jessica Lynne is a Brooklyn-based writer and arts administrator.

I primarily have a development background, and am interested in conversations around

equitable funding practices in the arts. As a writer, I’m invested primarily in the history of
black art critics over time—a really big topic—which led to the creation of ARTS.BLACK,
a platform for black art critics globally. In that work we are hoping to contribute an
editorial perspective, new voices, and acknowledge black critics whose work has been
historically excluded from the art historical canon.

Ryan Wong is a Brooklyn-based writer and exhibition organizer.

I work with Interference archive in Brooklyn to produce exhibitions focused on visual

cultures of social movements—I see social movements as extremely productive times for
artmaking and culture making. As an arts writer, I try to examine artwork in exhibition
reviews and essays as a full political being myself, acknowledging topics like race, class,
and gender and how these broad historical forces are inseparable from our understanding of
works of art.
 Ellen Tani recently received her PhD in Art History and is currently a curator based in the
Portland, Maine, area. She has been a contributor to The Art Genome Project since 2013.

CONS
REGRET PARENT’S LOVE TO CHILD IS UNCONDITIONAL

pro
At the same time, parents maintained their unconditional love for their children's behavior.
Parents gave their children unfettered freedom, few responsibilities, didn't hold them
accountable for their actions, provided no consequences, and continued to love them not
matter how they behaved - as long as they did well in school, it didn't matter if the children
were spoiled brats!

Parents must reverse their use of unconditional and conditional love. You need to give your
children unconditional love for their achievements so that they will be free from the fear
that you will not love them if they fail to meet your expectations. This unconditional love
will liberate your children from the specter of lost love and encourage them to give their
best effort and achieve the highest level of which they are capable.

At the same time, you can encourage your children's achievement efforts by using
conditional love for the values and attributes that will help them succeed, for example, in
school, sports, and the performing arts. When you use conditional love to instill essential
qualities, such hard work, discipline, patience, persistence, and perseverance, you then give
them the tools to achieve their goals.

Similarly, you should make your love conditional on whether your children behave like
decent human beings, namely, they act on healthy values such as honesty, kindness, respect,
and responsibility. If your children behave poorly, they know that you will withdraw your
love-at least temporarily. If they behave well, they know that you will give your love. In
time, your children will learn to internalize this healthy conditional love and it will guide
them in acting in ethical ways.

cons
Raising a child with unconditional love means that no fear is created in parent-child
interactions. To love unconditionally simply means that parents accept their children
completely and without restrictions or stipulations. There is no spoken (or unspoken)
message causing the child to think he has to be something other than what he is in order to
be loved. The need for unconditional love begins at conception.

The basic idea behind unconditional love seems quite reasonable. You should love your
children just for who they are, regardless of what they do. Children shouldn't have to worry
whether their actions will cause you to love them less. They should be able to count on your
love no matter what.

The child needs to experience total acceptance from both parents, but primarily from the
mother. This means that all physical features are accepted "as is". Unfortunately, this is not
always what happens. There can be something about their child that does not meet parents'
expectations, such as a funny-looking nose or ears, or unattractive teeth. In these cases, the
parents' uneasiness may trigger "innocent" remarks about a child's features, causing the
child to realize that his or her acceptance is conditional. Since the child can do little about
his body, he experiences the fear of rejection. The basis of this conditional acceptance is
perhaps due to the fact that the parents were not accepted unconditionally in their own
childhood, which causes their fear to surface in interactions with their children.

Not only should the physical nature of the child be totally accepted, but what the child says,
thinks, dreams or feels must be heard, honored and respected. The old philosophy that a
child should be "seen but not heard" gave some parents the illusion that children would
then develop respect for their parents. But this approach does not help a child to integrate
his fear. Only an approach that provides unconditional love will garner respect for the
parents! Therefore, if the parents want the child's respect, the child must be the recipient of
respect1. It is the same principle with adults - if we want a friend, we have to be a friend.
And if we want respect, we must respect others. This process begins with a deep
appreciation of the inner workings of a child's mind. When the child's thoughts and feelings
are heard and acknowledged by adults, he will feel respected and accepted, and experience
peace of mind. Having received this type of treatment, it is easy for the child to learn to
respect others.

Forbidden self-expression, due to fear of rejection or ridicule, causes the child to feel
unaccepted. This creates fear, and under these circumstances, the fear will not be integrated.
This child will then harbor resentment instead of respect. With the child's fully developed
limbic system combined with a prefrontal cortex that lags behind in development, actions
that cause the child to feel rejection are not likely to be processed by the child's mind as
they are by the adult mind. When a person (child or adult) feels fear, he must emerge from
the situation feeling safe and knowing that he can protect himself should he encounter a
similar situation. This is not likely to happen if the parents themselves are the source of the
fear.

Greatly enabling the parent to love the child unconditionally is the realization that the
development of their child's limbic system is years ahead of his prefrontal cortex. This
simply means that he is not an adult! Armed with this knowledge, it is easier to appreciate
why children may at times appear irresponsible, selfish, impulsive, immature and
inconsiderate. The fact that puppies act like puppies and not like grown dogs is readily
accepted. Yet parents have trouble accepting normalcy in their own child! This is more than
likely due to the fact that the parent's own normal, childish behavior was not accepted
unconditionally in their childhood.

Reprinted and adapted by permission of the author from The Fear Factor: The Core of a
Desperate Society, I Corinthians XIII Publishers, Wimberley, Texas, chapter 14.

First, children need unconditional love, absolute security, and a deep connection to at least
one adult if they are going to be prepared to overcome life's challenges. Second, and most
importantly here, children live up or down to adults' expectations of them.

Unconditional love gives children the knowledge that all will be okay in the long run. Even
when we dislike or disapprove of their behaviors, our children must always know we stand
beside them. Keep in mind that unconditional love doesn't mean unconditional approval.
You can reject a behavior without rejecting your child. Love is never withdrawn or
withheld based on a behavior. If you approach even your greatest concerns in this way,
your adolescent will not go down the dangerous path of believing she has nothing to lose.
Even as she may send you strong signals of rejection, she will eventually want to return to
the greatest security she knows, your unwavering presence.

FORMAL EDUCATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN INFORMAL EDUCATION

Formal education is classroom-based, provided by trained teachers. Informal education happens
outside the classroom, in after-school programs, community-based organizations, museums,
libraries, or at home.

PRO

Education is a process of training which can occur in various areas and stages of a person’s life. In
fact, education is all about learning, and when a man stops learning, he starts dying. This is because
learning is a daily activity that occurs from childhood to adulthood, until old age and to the grave.

The essence of education is to change and make an individual better than he or she was before, by
the impartation of virtue, skills, and knowledge. Before the coming of western education in Nigeria,
there has been a form of education existing then and still existing till today, it was informal
education. But informal education had several limitations, because it was very crude and primitive,
and could barely provide strong solutions to the problems of man.

Formal education is education delivered by trained teachers in a sequential manner within schools,
or universities. It is used to polish an individual to become a greater personality in society. Informal
education is what everyone has, but formal education is what an opportune few have, and that’s
why it is special. There is no doubt saying that formal education is better than informal education
with the following reasons of mine.

Firstly, formal education is the driver of modernization. In the olden days, when formal education
was absent, life activities were much difficult. This could be seen in the field of agriculture where
hoes and matchets were used instead of machines as in modernized agriculture today. Also, several
ungodly practices were occurring during those periods of complete informal education. But today
formal education has changed our society from ancient to modern, making technology very
available and useful. Also, bad cultural practices such as the killing of twins and the slave trade
have all been abolished as a result of the presence of formal education. Indeed, formal education
burned the bridge of ignorance.

Secondly, formal education completes a man. A man may have an informal education but yet he is
incomplete and might always feel intimidated by the educated elites of the society. Formal
education completes a man and brings out the intellectual best in him. Without formal education, a
man may remain incomplete and unable to attain full potential in life. But with formal education,
one can become a scientist, clergy, ambassador, teacher etc. These prestigious professions are only
achievable with formal education.

Thirdly, formal education makes life more meaningful. There is a biblical saying, “my people
perish because of lack of knowledge.” This saying points to the fact that with knowledge (formal
education) life can be understood and a complex thing can be made simpler, thereby preventing
mankind from perishing. Without medical research and knowledge, the truth about HIV/AIDS
would have remained hidden till today and when people die mysteriously, they call upon gods to
save them when their problem is just a tiny virus that spreads from an infected person to a non-
infected person through various means that usually involve bodily fluids and secretions.
Fourthly, formal education promotes international relationships. Any society that lacks formal
education in this 21st century is in trouble. This is because no nation has all it takes to stay alone.
There must be some form of communication with the international community. Therefore, to
facilitate communication and foster progress, formal education must be embraced. This explains
why the Nigerian government is doing everything possible to ensure that every child goes to school
and every Nigerian youth attends the university, so as to build a nation filled with learned men and
women for a better international communication and recognition.

Lastly, formal education inculcates the habit of reading into a man. There is a saying that“readers
are leaders.” This saying point to the fact that one can only be known if one reads books; and that
is what formal education tries to make us do. Formal education makes us read (study) and as one
studies, one becomes knowledgeable and eligible to be in a position of leading others. Therefore,
formal education is very important.

Having stated the following points of mine, I hope I have been able to convince you that “Formal
education is better than Informal education.” The truth does not hide, it’s always like the sun
shining during the day, and like the moon shining all through the night.

cons
Informal education is better than formal education do to the constant environment change and open
curriculum that a education lacks. Informal education is better and should be blended in with formal
education to get a real world experience. . Even now people are becoming more intelligent in formal
education through the years that the “ladder system” was introduced. Unfortunately though with
that we also have been developing lower and lower common sense. That is mainly to do with formal
education. Many people ask what is formal education? Formal education is education presented in a
prestiges matter in which there are different levels completed. The levels being Elementary school,
Middle School, High School, and finally college. Seeing that there are different levels to be
completed makes a more focused approach on education which in the long run will increase your
intelligence, do to wanting to complete the final task which is college. Even by doing this many
people blindly rush into college only forgetting what they have learned in middle school and even
high school. Formal education is also very narrow and not open in many other experiences. Formal
education schools are often decided what to teach based on what the state wants. With most of the
formal educations power going to the government and states. That leads formal educated schools to
having a very closed curriculum and not being able to learn outside the box or have any other
experiences. With formal education being a ladder system and a narrow curriculum, you can see
that in terms of college expectations you are intelligent, but in realistic experiences you are not.
Now what is Informal Education. Let me share an idea with you before i tell you. You probably
know what a formal event is right? You wear a formal garment such as a suit or a dress and you go
to a very on point social event, but whatever when you are not dressed formally? You tend to have
more creative freedom and you start to be educated on different types of apparel. Informal
education the informal clothes appose to formal clothes such as a dress or suit. In the world of
informal education there is no Ladder system. It is in short basic education but in a progressive form.
And with being no ladder system the states are not involved with the curriculum which means you
get to learn outside the box and experience far more than formal education could ever teach you.
Many people argue which is better when most people really lean more towards formal education,
but really for an educational stand point informal education is better. There are many factors to
bring into play when explaining the reason informal education is better than formal education. First
let me explain environmental reasons to this. Looking at formal education you see that every day
you are in the same blocks of classes and you are constantly surrounded by the same people. With
that you are not really experiencing different types of people because you are built upon having the
same people through out the school year. You are not exposed to different personalities or
characteristics do to people adapting to your own and becoming more like you. Informal education
on the other hand you are exposed to the same class room, but there are usually different people in
your class daily, and frequently even different teachers. With that your are not adapting to certain
personalities but you are adapting to a realistic way of life which is being surrounded constantly
with different people. Another thing argued strongly is the experience range. Formal education
gives you a very narrow curriculum not allowing you to experience other things that are more
valuable outside of school. Most of the things in formal educated school apply only to school and
not in the real world although english, science and some math is an exception. Informal education
allows you to see many different prospectives on certain subjects and you really get to experience a
lot more than what the state narrows it down too. Experience such as different people usually
everyday, different subjects everyday and when a subject is ever retaught, it is taught by a different
teaching making a different point of understanding. The education in an informal school is usually
basic things that you would learn in middle school, but going more into formal education it starts to
be applied to many different areas in a real world circumstance, and applied several different ways.
In a formal education school you are taught more advanced things that help develop the brain, but
has no use in the outside world. In todays formal educated schools we are all taught that knowledge
is power but that is really an understatement. What use do you have of acquired knowledge if you
don’t even know how to apply it in a real world circumstance? Point proven. Formal educated
schools today are focused to much upon how to help you get to the next step of the ladder rather
than helping you understand the use of the information provided. While formal education has a
great affect on the brain development wise, it lacks many uses outside of its buildings. In formal
education on the other has many experiences that are less advanced and may not enhance or develop
the brain much. But if knowing how to use one piece of great information acquired and it making
you become very successful. Then all the other information obtained that had no transformational
value was just a waist of time. Even today many people see education beyond high school as a
waist of time, and the ones that adore formal education argue greatly on the belief. The biggest
thing that affects people differently in formal or informal schools is the mindset that is carried
through out the course. When begging a regular ladder system school which starts at elementary
school we are all familiar with the different cards used to display behavior status. The blue card
representing excellent behavior. The green card representing good behavior. The yellow card
representing behavior that needs attention, and finally the red card representing bad behavior. What
people do not know is the physiological effects that the cards hold towards the child. When growing
up we are all taught right from wrong, but it is now human nature to focus only on the problems.
With that said many times in elementary school kids are often punished more than rewarded, and
many times barely acknowledged for the good they have done. When still developing at a young
age there brains start adapting and internalizing what they are surrounded by. Many times do kids
get yelled at for there miss behavior and even punished frequently. And not so often do the kids get
praised with the same amount of energy they were being punished for. With so little energy going
towards the good and rewarding, and so much going towards punishing there starts to become an
imbalance of emotions. In the long term the students feel like they are useless and not worthy
enough for whats to come. With that they start growing up with these feelings and in the long run
do not have the emotional uplift to conquer any dreams or goals. While during informal education
every student is treated equally and is not so much punished as they are rewarded. This in the long
run carries the opposite effect than in formal education.