who cares for art
Michael Zheng
when the artist himself is dead, and the living artists are
always held back by the works of those who are no longer alive."
Sad as it is, I believe it is still true, if not worse. Young
artists have to develop a "marketing" sense early, if "he's
serious". Too many times, art works are driven by monetery
incentives.
How do people feel and think about this? I personally think
that this has a lot to do with what kind of people care for
art these days. Anybody has any comments?
-------
Vance Bell
>Van Gogh used to write, " a lot of money is paid for his work
>when the artist himself is dead, and the living artists are
>serious". Too many times, art works are driven by monetery
>incentives.
I think there is much to be said on this topic. It appears that the mear
fact that art is a marketable commodity says much. A "professional" artist
is required to produce works that will sell, else one is relegated to
poverty and starvation. In this manner their work is often influenced
by concerns of marketability. A good question is whether or not many artists
that produce marketable art are producing "good" art. It seems to me at least
as if many artists produce easily accessible works in order to enhance
their popular appeal. Personally, I have found that good art is seldomly
immediately accessible to the audience, but requires time, contemplation,
and effort. Obviously, works exhibit this to various degrees (with some
art purposely made to transmit its meaning quickly). There is a terrible
parallel with this "immediate" accessability, and the direct accessability
exhibited by mass media, where various "meanings" are diluted, and made bas
in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and exert influence.
Additionally, I wonder about the apparent dissolution of the avant-guard.
Is there still a relevant "revolutionary" avant-guard inthe visual arts?
Its seems to have been replaced by the art of social-commentary, and the
art of artistic reference (that is the art that comments on other art).
What has become the goal of forward, "cutting-edge" artists.
These are ideas that I would like to see if anyone has any comments on.
Can rec.fine.arts become a forum for ideas about art, and the art world,
or is it only a place to find good painting supplies? No jab intended.
Vance Bell
University of Pennsylvania
vb...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
Manuel A. Hernandez
Bell) wrote:
>
> I think there is much to be said on this topic. It appears that the mear
> fact that art is a marketable commodity says much. A "professional" artist
> is required to produce works that will sell, else one is relegated to
> poverty and starvation. In this manner their work is often influenced
> by concerns of marketability. A good question is whether or not many artists
> that produce marketable art are producing "good" art. It seems to me at least
> as if many artists produce easily accessible works in order to enhance
> their popular appeal. Personally, I have found that good art is seldomly
> immediately accessible to the audience, but requires time, contemplation,
> and effort. Obviously, works exhibit this to various degrees (with some
Good art as judged by the artist, the viewer, the sponsor, the buyer, or
the critic
> art purposely made to transmit its meaning quickly). There is a terrible
> parallel with this "immediate" accessability, and the direct accessability
> exhibited by mass media, where various "meanings" are diluted, and made bas
> in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and exert influence.
accessibility/inaccessibility can only be used to maintain the status quo,
artists who make art accessible are trying to make art for EVERYone rather
than the traditional Eurocentric male audience it has been misrepresenting
itself to be for over the last few thousand years
> Additionally, I wonder about the apparent dissolution of the avant-guard.
There is no set criteria for any movement of art. There were no card
carrying avant gardians that were capable of turning in cards at the
dissolution of their terms of office.
> Is there still a relevant "revolutionary" avant-guard inthe visual arts?
At the moment we are in a post modern pause, there are many valid
interpretations of artwork and many different intentions being worked with
by artists.
> Its seems to have been replaced by the art of social-commentary, and the
> art of artistic reference (that is the art that comments on other art).
> What has become the goal of forward, "cutting-edge" artists.
Artists simply want to share their views and ideas with others, and what
might be seen as social commentary to mainstream society is usually more
than that to the artist who portrays it. By revealing values and culture,
artists are trying to move art towards a revolutionary new level. Art
activists are synthesizers and catalysts.
Many artists today combine social action, social theory, and fine art
tradition in a spirit of multiplicity and integration rather than narrowing
or limiting choices.
> These are ideas that I would like to see if anyone has any comments on.
> Can rec.fine.arts become a forum for ideas about art, and the art world,
> or is it only a place to find good painting supplies? No jab intended.
rec.fine.arts doesn't serve the purpose of artists today, due to lack of
artschools on the net. I'd also like to find other artists having access to
the net, from the places that do offer it.
Manny
Michael Zheng
|>
|> accessibility/inaccessibility can only be used to maintain the status quo,
|> artists who make art accessible are trying to make art for EVERYone rather
|> than the traditional Eurocentric male audience it has been misrepresenting
|> itself to be for over the last few thousand years
|>
|>
|> Many artists today combine social action, social theory, and fine art
|> tradition in a spirit of multiplicity and integration rather than narrowing
|> or limiting choices.
|>
|>
This should really be the way to go. However, I don't quite believe that
there is such a thing as "art for everybody". Once I was looking at a
painting where there were two nudes lying on the grass with the third
staring at a distance, when I heard someone saying, 'Isn't it wierd that
they paint two naked women in one picture?'. The point is, one always
looks at the world the way he is used to. This might be an extreme
example. Yet it serves the purpose of illustrating the differences in
perspectives. It has been very striking (to me) to realize how much an
artist (musician) assumes about his audience while he is creating his
works. Some artists are simply lost in the pure technicality of art
or music. It is very hard to imagine EVERYone to be able to appreciate
the same type of works.
On the other hand, art by its own nature tends to reflect the artists
concerns about the human kind. As long as that lasts, there will be
human beings to appreciate arts.
-------
David Blanchard
> Sad as it is, I believe it is still true, if not worse. Young
> artists have to develop a "marketing" sense early, if "he's
> serious". Too many times, art works are driven by monetery
> incentives.
It has to do with the nature of the art we are talking about here.
Rock and roll singers thrill us today and get paid today. Fine
artists have more limited distribution of their works and the
payoff comes later. The distribution of prints is helping this
situation to some extent.
In general, if you want to do art for a living, you had better be
prepared to satisfy some customers. If you want to do art for the
joy of doing it, keep your day job. Or, you can do a Van Gogh and
suck off your brother.
DavidOB --- bla...@cup.hp.com
Sherri
>In article <eafu044-29...@dialin33626.slip.nts.uci.edu>, eaf...@orion.oac.uci.edu (Manuel A. Hernandez) writes:
>|>
>|> accessibility/inaccessibility can only be used to maintain the status quo,
>|> artists who make art accessible are trying to make art for EVERYone rather
>|> than the traditional Eurocentric male audience it has been misrepresenting
>|> itself to be for over the last few thousand years
>|>
>[... lots deleted ]
>|>
>|> Many artists today combine social action, social theory, and fine art
>|> tradition in a spirit of multiplicity and integration rather than narrowing
>|> or limiting choices.
>|>
>|>
>|> Manny
Michael Zheng>
>This should really be the way to go. However, I don't quite believe that
>there is such a thing as "art for everybody".
I want to make it clear at the outset that I probably mean something
different by 'art for everybody' than you do. I received email recently
from someone who I'd asked about a poetic form called the 'ghazal'. I won't
say much about the post except an aside comment, which was that the
poetry that people paint on the back of their trucks are almost invariably
ghazals. Closest thing I've seen to poetry on the back of a vehicle here
in the U.S. is 'If this van's rocking, don't come knocking', and I'm
confidant that ghazals are of an entirely different level of quality. My
Uncle, a musician, told me of the days when barroom brawls would begin
over Wagner's work. And there's a story of a Frenchman who, in a fit of
anger, brought his wife to an exhibit and forced her to look at Cezanne's
paintings.
When I talk about art for 'everybody', I don't mean that
everyone will like it or even that everyone will understand it. but
'art for everyone' will be relevant in a way that I rarely (if ever)
see in the US today (I would appreciate input from other cultures and
countries though).
Once I was looking at a
>painting where there were two nudes lying on the grass with the third
>staring at a distance, when I heard someone saying, 'Isn't it wierd that
>they paint two naked women in one picture?'. The point is, one always
>looks at the world the way he is used to.
If art isn't capable of having in affect on how one looks at the world,
then I really don't know what we think we're doing.
This might be an extreme
>example. Yet it serves the purpose of illustrating the differences in
>perspectives. It has been very striking (to me) to realize how much an
>artist (musician) assumes about his audience while he is creating his
>works. Some artists are simply lost in the pure technicality of art
>or music. It is very hard to imagine EVERYone to be able to appreciate
>the same type of works.
some works can be appreciated in many different ways. Shakespeare's
plays are perhaps a prime example of art for everyone as I define it. Yet
a scholar could spend her life studying them, or even just a handful of
them. You are right that an artists makes assumptions about their
audience, but some assumptions are generous and others are offensive.
Some assumptions are far more exclusionary than others. I don't
_necessarily_ have a problem with artists getting lost in the 'pure
technicality', but they (we) should know what they are doing and have
some comprehension of the alternatives.
>
>On the other hand, art by its own nature tends to reflect the artists
>concerns about the human kind. As long as that lasts, there will be
>human beings to appreciate arts.
>
I hope so, but sometimes I wonder if much art expresses the artists
lack of concern about the human kind. Some art, I think, makes
inaccessability a goal, as if 'difficult' work is somehow more valuable.
Sherri
Melynda Reid
In article <116...@netnews.upenn.edu> (rec.arts.fine), vb...@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Vance Bell) writes:
> There is a terrible
> parallel with this "immediate" accessability, and the direct accessability
> exhibited by mass media, where various "meanings" are diluted
this statement above on accessibility is worth a longer discussion. right
now i am too tired from drawing flowers on the border of fate in the field
to be able to comment on this point.
> Additionally, I wonder about the apparent dissolution of the avant-guard.
> Is there still a relevant "revolutionary" avant-guard inthe visual arts?
> Its seems to have been replaced by the art of social-commentary, and the
> art of artistic reference (that is the art that comments on other art).
i wonder to what extent art has become artists speaking in a specialised jargon
to other artists.
> What has become the goal of forward, "cutting-edge" artists.
in my own case my goal is survival. physical, spiritual and cultural. of
myself, my loved ones and the plants and animals which live in my region. today
i went to draw a rare flower known to occur in just two sites in the world. i
met bulldozers and paving machines churning up the habitat. now as an artist
and scientist i must draw a map of the area to describe the rare plant and
animal communities being destroyed by road resurfacing. i will fax this map and
a short descriptive text to several agencies. my art in this case will be a 200
dpi high resolution faxed map with interlocking illustrations and poems from my
songs of the apalachicola. this latter is a polemical poetry work designed to
make audible the songs of the wildlings i draw. the state of florida has agreed
to stop the road work based upon my fax.
my art is used persuasively to protect what i love from extinction. i wish
i had the luxury of working more contemplatively. instead i draw caught in
the urgency of human-wrought natural disasters.
i would write more with more elegantly phrased thoughts but i am utterly drained.
m.c.reid
melynda reid who wears hats but does not type caps
eel: mel...@titipu.resun.com or nosc.mil!titipu.resun.com!melynda
snail: p o box 378 greensboro, florida 32330
David D. Jacobson
the preservation of an exclusive form of cultural capital, etc...- must
include in its scope a discussion of what art education is. I assume
that some of you writing on E-mail are visual artists enrolled in a
university art program. I am close to graduation and am having an
extremly difficult time participating in crits. My problem? I am
temporarilly incapable of suspending my common sense. One must do this
to talk to artists about art(and art historians and researchers). You
must have had this experience: you are in a studio course with less than
twenty artists(is there a "student" and "teacher" in art education?).
One individual's work is critiqued fairly harshly. The person feels
obviously defeated and proceeds to make minor "corrections" to their
work- based on a statistic(albeit an intuitively felt one). More people
in a class of 20(in an art program, in one university in one city in the
U.S.) disliked your work than liked it. The same process is played out
when a person feels vindicated after a crit. What the hell are crits?
What is their value? POINT?...obviously, aesthetic judgement is
completely subjective. This renders all judgements on equal footing. It
is an absurdity to critique a critique of an artwork. So what exactly(or
roughly) is being learned? I would argue that what is being learned is-
and this holds true for EVERY university and college- the capability to
produce sellable work. College faculty are chosen to a large extent for
their resume. Their resume is more impressive the more shows they've
been in, funding they've gotten, and work they've sold. These only come
about if the artworld buys(both meanings) your work. It's business
school.
Damn! I have to leave.
David
Jeff Winslow
>I hope so, but sometimes I wonder if much art expresses the artists
>lack of concern about the human kind. Some art, I think, makes
>inaccessability a goal, as if 'difficult' work is somehow more valuable.
Name a specific work (preferably one which a large percentage of the people
reading this group would be likely to have seen) which you think does either
or both of these things.
Jeff Winslow
Deborah M Riel
>U.S.) disliked your work than liked it. The same process is played out
>when a person feels vindicated after a crit. What the hell are crits?
>What is their value? POINT?...obviously, aesthetic judgement is
To me the value of a crit is not to vindicate or defeat (although
that's what it often feels like at the time) but to force the
participant to suspend his/her ego long enough to see alternative
solutions or directions and possibilities that the artwork could take.
This is probably the most valuable thing I ever learned in art school
and the most difficult for me to deal with. You can accept, reject
or think about any suggestions or criticisms made to you but it does
_require_ you to rethink your ideas.
Debbie Riel
cs101 student
-artist
Manuel A. Hernandez
<dj...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> The discussion of the driving forces behind art- economy, necessity,
> the preservation of an exclusive form of cultural capital, etc...- must
> include in its scope a discussion of what art education is.
Art Education is learning about the driving forces behind art, and if your
making Art, You alone are responsible for learning how to go about it.
>I assume
> that some of you writing on E-mail are visual artists enrolled in a
> university art program. I am close to graduation and am having an
> extremly difficult time participating in crits. My problem? I am
> temporarilly incapable of suspending my common sense. One must do this
> to talk to artists about art(and art historians and researchers).
I think you need to keep your common sense all the time, especially when
talking to other artists about your work, because they may have worked
through the same or similar problems, or have experienced similar
situations. I
>You
> must have had this experience: you are in a studio course with less than
> twenty artists(is there a "student" and "teacher" in art education?).
I think most Art Schools agree that the only advantage 'most' teachers have
over the other artists in class is their experience in the art world.
> One individual's work is critiqued fairly harshly. The person feels
> obviously defeated and proceeds to make minor "corrections" to their
> work- based on a statistic(albeit an intuitively felt one).
It is not always neccessary to bow to the crit's decision. but, yuou better
be able to defend your reasoning, because they are playing the role of
critic, and if your work is inaccessible to them, chances are it will be
inaccessible to other viewers as well.
>More people
> in a class of 20(in an art program, in one university in one city in the
> U.S.) disliked your work than liked it. The same process is played out
> when a person feels vindicated after a crit. What the hell are crits?
> What is their value? POINT?...obviously, aesthetic judgement is
> completely subjective.
Aesthtics are only part of Art. There are other things to consider, I
believe the most important is concepts, but many disagree with me. If the
idea is strong, it may help bring the piece into a better light, but
concepts will not perform miracles. Perhaps you might look into other Art
Schools and see if you can find one that matches your interests and values,
where you can pursue them in a positive environment. It sounds to me like
you might be getting turned off by the opinions expressed at your school?!
> This renders all judgements on equal footing. It
> is an absurdity to critique a critique of an artwork. So what exactly(or
> roughly) is being learned? I would argue that what is being learned is-
> and this holds true for EVERY university and college- the capability to
> produce sellable work.
I would argue that sellable work is being produced in your experience, at
your school, and that you are prematurely basing a decision on the
integrity of Art School. Try finding faculty members who work in Public
Arts, or Installation based art.
>College faculty are chosen to a large extent for
> their resume. Their resume is more impressive the more shows they've
> been in, funding they've gotten, and work they've sold. These only come
> about if the artworld buys(both meanings) your work. It's business
> school.
I find it hard to believe that ANY artist today can count on producing
artwork as a primary source of income. And Teaching is a great way to pass
on your ideas, methods, and experiences. It's true that resume's help get
artists jobs at schools, but so do Ideals. Don't give up
on them
________________________________________________________________________________
Where there is a great deal of light Manuel A. Hernandez
The shadows are deeper Goethe
eaf...@orion.oac.uci.edu
Marc Kevin Fischer
borrow my radio from my studio without asking all the time, eat dinner
with on ocassion, etc.) I feel compelled to respond.
David writes:
>
> The discussion of the driving forces behind art- economy, necessity,
>the preservation of an exclusive form of cultural capital, etc...- must
>include in its scope a discussion of what art education is. I assume
>that some of you writing on E-mail are visual artists enrolled in a
>university art program. I am close to graduation and am having an
>extremly difficult time participating in crits. My problem? I am
>temporarilly incapable of suspending my common sense. One must do this
>to talk to artists about art(and art historians and researchers). You
>must have had this experience: you are in a studio course with less than
>twenty artists(is there a "student" and "teacher" in art education?).
Well anyone who remains receptive to learning is always a student.
"Teachers" in the sense of academia generally just have a greater
quantity and range of knowledge in a particular field than their
"students" though in a good student/teacher relationship knowledge is
not just taught and learned but exchanged.
>One individual's work is critiqued fairly harshly. The person feels
>obviously defeated and proceeds to make minor "corrections" to their
>work- based on a statistic(albeit an intuitively felt one).More people
>in a class of 20(in an art program, in one university in one city in the
>U.S.) disliked your work than liked it. The same process is played out
>when a person feels vindicated after a crit.
Somtimes people who lack integrity or confidence do more than make
corrections after a bad crit, they make total revisions. Others suspend
all critical judgement after a good crit. Not all work impacts people
similarly (some work may have no impact at all on a viewer) and this
must be taken into consideration by the maker, I think if crits are to
be of some use. If the work presented is largely communicative and it
does not communicate, as the artist had hoped, to this sample audience,
than corrections may be in order. Artists of course have their momentary
lapses in critical judgement and critiques sometimes help alert the
maker to this. I've definitely had this experience. I've also had people
respond in a harsh manner reflecting obvious personal biases while
barely even looking at my work. Obviously I give those responses little
consideration. I've had people love my work for purely formal reasons
and this means little to me as well. I think artists have be receptive
but also have to trust themselves - A bad crit is not the end of the
world and a good crit hardly means that the struggle is over.
>What the hell are crits?
>What is their value? POINT?...obviously, aesthetic judgement is
>completely subjective. This renders all judgements on equal footing. It
>is an absurdity to critique a critique of an artwork. So what exactly(or
>roughly) is being learned? I would argue that what is being learned is-
>and this holds true for EVERY university and college- the capability to
>produce sellable work.
First thing, generally in crits artists are asked to make a statement
about their work. I think the skill of being able to articulate what one
is thinking about in a non-visual manner, orally or verbally, be this
addressing some of your formal or conceptual concerns in the work, is a
valuable one. Should the work be able to stand on it's own without oral
defense? I think so. But in a college or university, you are paying for
a learning environment where people exchange and present ideas. Thus,
you should be able to discuss what you are doing and thinking. Otherwise
no one else benefits because if you want to look at art without hearing
from the person who made it you can just go to a museum or gallery.
Secondly, often in crits people site artists, subjects, people, or
concepts that interest them in relation to their work. These are often
not things suggested clearly by the work itself. By voicing one's
interests the possibility then exists to be turned on by classmates to
other, perhaps previously unknown, sources which might be of value to
your work and studies. Universities and crits expediate the process of
learning in this way. Though when half the class is mute, obviously not
much is accomplished. Question: Why are so many of my classmates mute?
I don't think one can determine whether their work (or what work) is
sellable through crits. This would be better determined by shooting
slides of the work and sending it to galleries,grad schools, ads for
teaching positions, or taking the work out on the street and holding a
little art sale. Crits are one testing ground for formal and conceptual
experimentation. Not the only testing ground of course. Part of the
convenience of crits is that because everyone brings in and talks about
their work, one has some sense (a little) of their audience's positions
as artists and using that as a measure, one can begin to decide how much
consideration to give some peoples' opinions.
>College faculty are chosen to a large extent for
>their resume. Their resume is more impressive the more shows they've
>been in, funding they've gotten, and work they've sold. These only come
>about if the artworld buys(both meanings) your work. It's business
>school.
I've been told otherwise by some faculty. What I have heard is that
your work itself is above all the most important factor. If your slides
generate no interest than nothing else will get much consideration.
Applying to Grad school is largely the same way. An interview is also
important. While some schools do include information in their literature
concerning what public collections their faculty have work in (which is
probably of little significance since museums buy tons of work that sits
in storage forever and is never seen) I doubt this is too important in
being chosen for a teaching position.
Can any professors of art or art history discuss what they feel were key
factors in their being chosen for a position?
okay that's enough for now. - Marc
Marc Kevin Fischer
>Can any professors of art or art history discuss what they feel were key
>factors in their being chosen for a position?
>
Better yet, could any professors discuss why they have chosen to teach?
If you are an artist, what effect does teaching and/or your students
have on your own work or ideas about art? Do ideas generated in class
ever impact your own art? Has a student's research paper ever led you in
a different direction from your original field of study? I'd be
interested to hear what artists and art historians get out of teaching
and what impact their students work has on their own.
Thanks - Marc
Marc Kevin Fischer
>Can any professors of art or art history discuss what they feel were key
>factors in their being chosen for a position?
>
Better yet, could any professors discuss why they have chosen to teach?
Vance Bell
I shall:
David Smith's CUBI series
Tilted Arc (now destroyed)
Most Modernist school non-ornament architecture since Mies
More will follow...
The problem is that most works of this type that people are familiar with
have redeeming qualities despite of their inaccessibility.
Vance Bell
Vance Bell
>
>In article <116...@netnews.upenn.edu> (rec.arts.fine), vb...@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Vance Bell) writes:
>> There is a terrible
>> parallel with this "immediate" accessability, and the direct accessability
>> exhibited by mass media, where various "meanings" are diluted
To expand on my previous comment: I mean to say that many works of mass
appeal, such as the vast number of Impressionist works, are considered
wonderful by the audience for their beauty. This superficial understanding
is accepted by the majority of museum-goers who are viewing probably
50-100 paintings in the period of 30 minutes during a large show.
There is certainly more happening in an Impressionist work than is
understood by the general audience. However, the subliminal emphasis in these
shows
is almost one of consumption. In this the work is viewed as a commodity,
and the show is much less effectual that is should be. Finally, the work
becomes commodity as every purchases their poster for their home.
Impressionism as wallpaper. The situation
bears resemblance to mass market genres such as advertising and primetime TV
where little is asked of the viewer and nothing of significance is gained
in the viewing process.
Concerning Inaccessiblity: I agree with Melynda that many works are,
"speaking in a specialized jargon to other artists." I would include
other art critics, historians, dealers, curators, etc. to a list of
targeted audiences.
The self referential aspects of art closes its ability to speak to
everyman, to educate him, or to improve his existance. A nonaccessible
work for instance, The Tilted Arc, that stood on Federal Plaza in NYC is
both a good and bad example of this. It appeared to be a comment on
alienation in the modern city, a point that was driven home by
its presentation as an insurmountable obstacle in a well used plaza.
Its inaccessibility as a form (a black, curved wall, taller than a man)
and its placement forced a confrontation with users of the public space.
The work is in your face and you MUST deal with it. I like that in cases
of inaccessible public works, however the emphasis is certainly not life
affirming! Should public works "beautify" a space or be confrontational?
A world of confrontational works would be nearly as bad as having to
constantly look at unornamented modern skyscrapers and office buildings
all day. Tilted Arc represents what can be GOOD about minimalist works,
but the vast majority are not of this quality, and they usually end up as
uncommunicative visual eyesores (and we need more of that in our advance
industrial society!). The downside is that most individuals thought
Tilted Arc was an abomination, and gained little from it.
Is minimalism then a valid "style" for public art?
Vance Bell
Univ. of Penn.
Vance Maverick
|> [of "Tilted Arc"]
|> Its inaccessibility as a form (a black, curved wall, taller than a man)
|> and its placement forced a confrontation with users of the public space.
|> The work is in your face and you MUST deal with it. I like that in cases
|> of inaccessible public works, however the emphasis is certainly not life
|> affirming!
This is pretty questionable. I don't even know what it means for
a work to be life-affirming -- maybe it encodes the proposition
"Life is good"? :). Further, I don't see how a lack of
life-affirmation follows from your analysis, which in turn I
don't really accept. But it gets you to the overwhelming
question --
|> Is minimalism then a valid "style" for public art?
-- which I would translate to "Can art the public doesn't like
be appropriate public art?", avoiding theoretical constructions
on the notion of minimalism. Consider public art as an act of
our nominally public government....
Vance
Stuart LeBlanc
> If you are an artist, what effect does teaching and/or your students
> have on your own work or ideas about art? Do ideas generated in class
>ever impact your own art? Has a student's research paper ever led you
>in a different direction from your original field of study? I'd be
>interested to hear what artists and art historians get out of teaching
>and what impact their students work has on their own.
Among reasons for teaching, there are several obvious ones. Having a
stable economic position with sufficient freedom from mundane
responsibilities is probably primary. Also, there are the resources
(library, studios, performance/exhibition/publication facilities) which
a good teaching institution offers. And of course, the opportunity to
cultivate the general practice of one's art by passing it on to others.
As for how students have influenced my work, there are occasional
instances wherein a student will present an idea or perspective which I
haven't thought of, but it is generally tangential to or an
amplification of the material which is presented to them, and thus does
not constitute anything substantive. What I consider to be probably the
most beneficial aspect of working with students is the opportunity of
being involved in the personal development of others, to witness their
sense of wonder at the discovery of things of value, and to encourage
their earnest pursuit of these things. Which also helps beat back the
occasional attack of stodginess, by the way.
Stuart LeBlanc
Guitar Instructor
MTSU Dept. of Music
leb...@knuth.mtsu.edu
Vance Bell
>|> [of "Tilted Arc"]
>|> Its inaccessibility as a form (a black, curved wall, taller than a man)
>|> and its placement forced a confrontation with users of the public space.
>|> The work is in your face and you MUST deal with it. I like that in cases
>|> of inaccessible public works, however the emphasis is certainly not life
>|> affirming!
>
>This is pretty questionable. I don't even know what it means for
>a work to be life-affirming -- maybe it encodes the proposition
>"Life is good"? :). Further, I don't see how a lack of
>life-affirmation follows from your analysis, which in turn I
>don't really accept.
I would not put forth "life-affirming" as a criterium for a valid work of art
in any context. However, the Tilted Arc does/did appear to
comment on alienation in modern society, a concept which usually is
considered to have negative connotations, and a situation that is usually
not pleasant for the individuals alienated. I would suggest that you
put forth your interpretation of the work instead of only stating that you
disagree with mine.
>But it gets you to the overwhelming
>question --
>
>|> Is minimalism then a valid "style" for public art?
>
>-- which I would translate to "Can art the public doesn't like
>be appropriate public art?", avoiding theoretical constructions
>on the notion of minimalism. Consider public art as an act of
>our nominally public government....
Public art is not always sponsored by any form of public government.
Much of it is corporate or institutional, both groups that do not often
allow for imput into their commission processes.
I would translate my own words as," Are the intentions of public artists
in producing inaccessible works appropriate for their context as public works?
What is their intent? Is the goal in the public good? Does it benefit
the individuals who encounter it everyday, or is it elitist and exclusionary?"
Vance Bell
Vance Maverick
|>
|> I would not put forth "life-affirming" as a criterion for a valid work of art
|> in any context. However, the Tilted Arc does/did appear to
|> comment on alienation in modern society, a concept which usually is
|> considered to have negative connotations, and a situation that is usually
|> not pleasant for the individuals alienated. I would suggest that you
|> put forth your interpretation of the work instead of only stating that you
|> disagree with mine.
I didn't know TA was a comment on alienation. (Did Serra say
so?) To me, it was an interesting use of a space which had
already been designed from a large-scale point of view (it was
between massive office blocks, right?). I don't think most
people are comfortable taking a large-scale view of the space
they work near and stand in daily.
|> [other stuff]
|>
|> I would translate my own words as, "Are the intentions of public artists
|> in producing inaccessible works appropriate for their context as public works?
|> What is their intent? Is the goal in the public good? Does it benefit
|> the individuals who encounter it everyday, or is it elitist and exclusionary?"
My point in disagreeing with you before was that I didn't
think TA was inaccessible. I'm not an intentionalist, so I'm
not qualified to argue this on grounds of how the artist
thought; I'm more interested in the special *use* of public
art. After all, if an artist does something people like with
evil in his heart, where's the problem?
There's a difference between "getting" something (I take this
to be the opposite of the thing being inaccessible) and
enjoying having it around every minute of the day. I think TA
was interesting from a point of view which most people adopt
easily with respect to mountains (since Rousseau); if the
people who disliked it were "excluded", it was by propinquity,
not by some elitist thought on Serra's part.
Anyway, since I don't think it helps to know the artist's
goal, I was worrying more about how a corporation or
government ought to represent the public in choosing public
art, something I don't see an easy solution to.
Vance
Vance Bell
>|> comment on alienation in modern society, a concept which usually is
>|> considered to have negative connotations, and a situation that is usually
>
>so?) To me, it was an interesting use of a space which had
I fact I serra did not say a word about alienation in is defense of the
work at the trial to decide its fate. His emphasis was supposedly, and
quite correctly visual. The arc was to continue over the viewer visually
when viewed from the concave side. Thus incorporating additional space
into the work. Evidentally Serra spent several days in the plaza and
marked off the placement of the arc with chalk, observing the movement
of individuals in the plaza. He stated at the trial that the work did not
interfere with the circulation patterns of the plaza. In fact the major
amount of traffic went along (parallel to) the arc in the manner that Serra
wanted the work to viewed. It also played against the spirally design on
the plaza floor in a manner visually negating that motif.
The idea of alienation come mostly from "expert" witnesses called to
testify at the trial. I have included a few quotes that may be interesting:
"The plaza that it is in and the buildings that surrounds it are inhuman in
their scale, boring and tedious, and the scupture makes you confront that
issue everytime you walk by it." - Ronald Feldman - Dealer
"I believe that everybody should have the right to detest contemporary
art, especially like that of Richard Serra, that addresses the conditions
of alienation..." Benj. Buchloh - Art Historian, SUNY
"Tilted Arc makes sure that we do not fall asleep mindlessly and
indifferently to our destiny and to increasing scarcity of freedom
available in an increasingly banal word." Fred Hoffman - Art Historian,
and Freelance Curator, L.A.
I my opinion Serra could not really say anything at the trial concerning
the work's reference to alienation. It would be impolitic, and not help
his position in the least. Serra did however say that the goal of the
work was to make you aware of you visual environment. In this manner I
think the play of the work against the scale is the plaza is most
important to consider.
>|> I would translate my own words as, "Are the intentions of public artists
>|> in producing inaccessible works appropriate for their context as public works?
>|> What is their intent? Is the goal in the public good? Does it benefit
>|> the individuals who encounter it everyday, or is it elitist and exclusionary?"
>
>My point in disagreeing with you before was that I didn't
>think TA was inaccessible. I'm not an intentionalist, so I'm
>thought; I'm more interested in the special *use* of public
>art.
>There's a difference between "getting" something (I take this
>to be the opposite of the thing being inaccessible) and
>enjoying having it around every minute of the day. I think TA
I personally do not find TA to be inaccessable either, but that is only
because I am informed to some extent in the vocabulary it is speaking with.
To the lay individual I believe the situation is much different. There is
a certain background that is presupposed by the artist here, if the viewer
is not an initiate of the art world and does not have this background then
I think meaning is lost. The public usually fears what it can not
understand and it has GREAT difficulty in coming to terms with TA. One
interesting point that came up at the trial was the need for art education.
Since the percent for art laws were passed the public has has to contend
with numerous works by contemporary artists that it just wasn't equiped to
deal with. I think that therein lies most of the reason that TA was removed.
Vance Bell
s ryan
>
>I personally do not find TA to be inaccessable either, but that is only
>because I am informed to some extent in the vocabulary it is speaking with.
>To the lay individual I believe the situation is much different. There is
>a certain background that is presupposed by the artist here, if the viewer
>is not an initiate of the art world and does not have this background then
>I think meaning is lost. The public usually fears what it can not
>understand and it has GREAT difficulty in coming to terms with TA. One
>interesting point that came up at the trial was the need for art education.
>Since the percent for art laws were passed the public has has to contend
>with numerous works by contemporary artists that it just wasn't equiped to
>deal with. I think that therein lies most of the reason that TA was removed.
>
>Vance Bell
One of the points that I feel is getting lost here is that we, as artists,
have the burden of making our work communicate. If JQ Public doesn't get
*something* from the work, the fault is not theirs. It is the artist's.
Granted, not every work speaks to every person, and different people
appreciate a work at different levels, but it is up to the work (and hence
the artist) to be accessible at some level. Otherwise it fails. Work that
is produced only to show how erudite the artist and particular educated
viewers (or listeners or whatever) are is not art. It is narcisstic and
bogus.
So what did people "get" from TA? Clearly, they must have gotten
something, or there wouldn't have been such a hue and cry. Now, the
question becomes what is the place of art that people just don't like in
the public sphere? A very different question.
Relevant to the suggestion of additional art education... Work has to
catch people at some level and make them want to learn more. That's the
only way that'll work. (And it's damn hard to do!)
S
Rick Thibault
I agree with your reasons for teaching and are the same reasons why I like
to teach. I am a video artist and I am a teaching assistant, instructing
electronc arts courses. I am also contemplating teaching as a profession.
But, something doesn't set right with me about a comment you made:
"As for how students have influenced my work, there are occasonal
instances wherein a student will present an idea or perspective which I
haven't thought of, but t is generally tangential to or an
amplification of the material which is presented to them, and thus does
not constitute anything substantive."
This comment really bothers me. As teachers it is our jobs to inspire
our students and to get them to use their creativity in new and interesing
ways. Our students are the next generation of artists. According to you
their work isn't going to be much different from what the previous
generation has produced.
Being a teacher is great for the access to facilities that you wouldn't
have otherwise, but you have an inportant obligation to your students.
Maybe you should re-evaluate your motivations.
I invite you to come and experience our philosophy of the arts here
at Rensselaer.
_______________________________________
TBO
iEAR Studios
(Integrated Electronic Arts at Rensselaer)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY
Stuart LeBlanc
>"As for how students have influenced my work, there are occasonal
>instances wherein a student will present an idea or perspective which
>I haven't thought of, but t is generally tangential to or an
>amplification of the material which is presented to them, and thus does
>not constitute anything substantive."
>This comment really bothers me. As teachers it is our jobs to inspire
>our students and to get them to use their creativity in new and
>interesing ways. Our students are the next generation of artists.
>According to you their work isn't going to be much different from
>what the previous generation has produced.
Well, I don't really see how your inferences follow from what I said.
As an educator, I consider my primary objective to be the empowerment of
the student (by the acquisition of interpretive and technical skills)
to tap their own creative resources. If those basic resources don't
exist, then they have little reason to be in my studio, because spending
a half hour each week with me is not going to give them the realm of
experiences which are integral to what I recognize as the creative
impulse. I don't mind providing the occasional bit of inspirational
display, and a structured approach in cultivating the student's
creativity and imagination are a fundamental component of my teaching,
as well as constant encouragement and positive regard. But if I were to
become their main source of creative ideas and inspiration, then it
would seem to follow that this would be the surest way to realize your
fear of decline in the excitement and originality of new art; I would
also have betrayed my stated objective by influencing them to be like
me, rather than to be whomever lies undiscovered in them.
As for the fact that my students have not substantively influenced my
own creativity, what can I say? I don't want to sound arrogant, but
they just aren't producing on the same level as I am. Their basic
enthusiasm and openness is an influence though, as I stated before. On
the other hand, maybe when we get some graduate students...
Melynda Reid
In article <1q4j1g$1...@knuth.mtsu.edu> (rec.arts.fine), leb...@knuth.mtsu.edu (Stuart LeBlanc) writes:
> As for the fact that my students have not substantively influenced my
> own creativity, what can I say? I don't want to sound arrogant, but
> they just aren't producing on the same level as I am.
i would not expect students to be able to produce creatively at the same level
as instructors. many students are in their late teens or early twenties, a
developmental stage where the person must separate from the parent and from the
older generation. finding identity is a task of that age group. students invest
themselves in many tasks---growing up, discovering their own talents and interests
and limits, paying tuition, working for survival. they may become producing
highly creative artists one day. but the development of an artist is integrally
related to the development of a person. it is not just learning tools and
techniques.
melynda claire reid
Sherri
Stuart, I believe that your .sig mentioned that you are a guitar instructer?
(or perhaps another musical instrument?). I think that may have
something to do with why your students don't ever influence your
creativity because they aren't producing at the same level.
I've learned from talented people I've helped with their writing (I am
not formally a teacher exactly, but I do a lot of teaching, primarily
with children) even if they are not as skilled as I am. I think that
most people with a drive to be creative will 'luck out' occasionally. No,
that's a bad choice of words, it's more that they hit the right stride
for them. if a writer or a visual artist comes up with a spectacular
image and really 'gets it'...well, then the work is still there for
you to look at and learn from even if the young artist doesn't repeat
such an experience for a year. A musician, on the other hand, may
play a segment of a piece perfectly and give it a unique interpretation,
but chances are this will happen at home with no record of the
experience. Until the individual develops the skill to 'make it happen
regularly' an instructor is not likely to learn from them in the same
way.
I don't think that teachers are likely to be influenced by every student
or even by one student all the time, but it would be interesting to hear
from teachers in other fields.
Sherri