LET US RANT TOGETHER(was: Postmodern, Iian, Mani, Structuralism, etc.)
bt
(Post-)Modernist art is held by the people who inhabit the institutions
that arbitrate "high culture" (museums, universities, art magazines).
1. These arbiters of taste are FEEBLEMINDED FOOLS who have been taken in
by slick-talking bamboozlers (academics who are jockeying for turf or
tenure; artists and their gallery hucksters).
2. They are BAMBOOZLERS themselves; they ride in the cushy club cars of a
gravy train powered by pulling wool over the eyes of an art-hungry public
while lifting coins from the blinded citizens' pockets. They set
themselves between art and the audience by promoting inscrutible objects
cloaked in a smokescreen of hoity-toity gibberish which intimidates the
innocent into submission.
3. They are LUCKY SAPS, randomly elevated to positions of prestige
through a nonsensical "lottery" in a nutty universe whose only law is
conformity to unintelligible dogma.
4. They are more-or-less-witting SLAVES OF A MALICIOUS CULT: a frightened
herd that will charge in any direction their leader points. The leaders'
agendas vary according to the date and the proclivities of the observer:
standards of quality (or decency) are undermined in order to put lesbians
in power, to install a communist government, to greedily furnish their own
financial coffers, etc.
5. They are ARTISTS, INTELLECTUALS, AND TRADERS IN ART who attempt to
understand and negotiate the value of art in the present by placing it (or
producing it, or promoting it) within an informed cultural context. They
study and acknowledge the arguments and challenges to tradition that
constitute the intellectual climate in which "advanced" art has been
produced and understood for many decades. They attempt to identify (or
produce) work that extends, contradicts or complicates previous art in
light of that history, and to introduce relevant ideas and histories that
have been overlooked or suppressed. They often favor work that makes
unusual demands on its audience: this may be one of the key aspects that
distingushes "fine" art from entertainments that reassure the audience
through repetition of predictable genres. (The fact that modernist
"difficulty" itself can be seen as a predictable genre is, perhaps, one
reason that the leaky umbrella term "postmodernism" keeps getting trotted
out.) They argue with each other. They are sometimes shortsighted, narrow
minded, territorial, fashion mad, power mad, or otherwise overcome by
silly enthusiasms.
I've perused--and occasionally contributed to--this newsgroup for three or
four years. I am struck by the persistence of the argument that "modern
art" (however defined) is either totally corrupt or an outright fraud,
unworthy of serious consideration. I am surprised that this view occurs
so often among people who are interested in writing about fine art.
While one should not discount the kernals of reality in theories 1-4, what
strikes me is how little respect is commanded by the idea that the
prevailing artworld orthodoxies are the flawed products of serious
investigations entered into in good faith by intelligent people. Many
participants in this group have seemed to reject outright the possibility
that art works which first appear as an affront to common sense (e.g.,
Duchamp's urinal, Pollock's allover drips, Don Judd's boxes, Mike Kelley's
stuffed dolls) might actually have earned their esteem for good reasons,
even though those reasons are not evident at a glance, or even after
staring for half an hour.
Lately, the group's discussions seem to be attracting more good-faith
participants--Mark, Iian, N, Jim, Marilyn, Bob C, Andrew Werby, Paul
Lanier, Giles and others. I suppose that my reflections on the group's
past are colored by memories of the indefatigable Mani, whose feisty
energy keeps things lively but who seems unwilling to enter into the
give-and-take of discussion (as opposed to dismissal), with the attendent
danger that his thinking could be changed. (Please feel free to prove me
wrong on this point, Mani.)
Is there a fundamental gulf between active participants in the "artworld"
(of course there are many artworlds, but I'm talking about the "fine" one
that seems to have the highest profile: MOMA, Artforum magazine, CalArts,
and so forth) and rec.arts.fine? I'm curious whether others have noticed
the same thing, and--if you agree that this gulf exists--whether the gap
between professional art specialists and fine-arts newsgroup writers is
somehow instructive.
So, here are two questions to keep things rolling:
Why is rec.arts.fine so often peppered with sweeping denunciations of all
(post-)modern art and the institutions that support it?
Why are the discussions that animate the art schools and art magazines so
little in evidence here?
Sincerely,
BT
Marilyn
snipped here,
modern art
I found your post very interesting. I am in trouble for quoting a
little Shakespeare into the middle of a serious ongoing debate on
whether Rothko is pomo. So I enjoyed your letter and would like
to respond to your question. Being part of an art community of sorts,
being an artist as defined by our department of revenue, and having
access to the newsgroup, I feel that they are two different worlds.
The art around me and the art which is favoured here.
The artists I know and the visual art exhibitions I attend are
contemporary, exciting, with innovative and wonderful use of
materials, old and new. The art which _seems_ to be favoured by the
majority of posters to r.a.f. is conservative and traditional,
oil on canvas, watercolour on paper, recognizable images, following
the Renaissance traditions of perspective, adoring Ingres.
It has me imagining that artists who are on-line here are in the majority
a conservative group. Some, as you pointed out are downright hostile
to anything modern or post-modern. I also notice a male dominance,
with a few women interjecting now and then.
Although the tone has improved considerably recently, it is my
opiinion that this is not the forum for long discussion. It is more
a forum for wit. I loved the way Charles Eicher cut off the debate
on the ethics of mechanically reproduced prints being faked off as
artists' prints. He talked about his only collection of prints, that of
presidents of the USA [money]. So to me there is not enough wit
or humour and too much deadly serious long discussions. Admittedly
these discussions are better than some of the spams & rants and
many people enjoy them.
I tune in for technical tips, especially from Charles Eicher
philosophy from Mark Webber
art history from 'N'
Mostly it is like a rummage sale, sifting out the marketing...
adieu,
Marilyn
Trevor Walz
i never could understand why people, seemingly so intelligent, could be so
closed minded ..... especially in the world of art - were free expression
should be a celebrated thing. i am fairly new to this whole newsgroup thing
and i am slowly understanding the "gulf" bt speaks of. i would say the bulk
of my work would be dissmissed by some of the more conservative participants
of this group .... and i guess if i gave a damn - i would be in no better a
mindset then they are. my point being ... sometimes it is not the art itself
which is revolutionary and genius .... but the idea behind the piece.
Iian Neill
> closed minded ..... especially in the world of art - were free expression
> should be a celebrated thing.
Freedom of expression *is* a celebrated thing in art. Speaking personally, I
appreciate art ranging from that of the ancient Greeks to cinematography. The
point at issue is whether the term "free expression" (or ones like it) can be
used to excuse incompetent art, or to exalt as "art" something which is not. This
issue is complicated by a widely-held belief that art is, at essence,
indefinable, which has left the gate wide open for the lunatic fringe in
asserting that anything they wish can be, and is, art. It is more than merely a
matter of personal taste. Just as an objective critic can appraise a performance
by a pianist on its merits and defects, so should we also be allowed to judge the
art of all times. The classical music critic is allowed to say, "His performance
was very shoddy indeed - the technique was atrocious, there were wrong notes
everywhere, the conception was distorted, the tone feeble" - yet what can the
modern art critic (or interested bystander) say? He can say virtually nothing,
because technique, in Modern Academic circles, has been "debunked" as a valid
criteria for the objective appreciation of contemporary art. Oh yes, it's fair
enough to say that a minor peer of Ingres' of Delacroix' might have been a weak
painter technically, and we can even say this with a straight face - but to try
and criticize a contemporary artist with the same criteria and groups will cry
out in protest that such judgements are antiquated, ultra-conservative,
retrogressive or even delusional. The fact remains that Michelangelo, Leonardo,
Rubens and many others are still loved by art enthusiasts even today, centuries
after their deaths - this says something about their innate quality. I am of the
opinion that in two hundred years time such painters as Pollock and Braque will
only be of interest to historians because of what they reveal of the intellectual
elite of the time ; an elite which worships incomprehensible and sterile works as
"masterpieces". Worse than this, there is the very real danger that Fine Art may
be set back a long time. How can any serious contemporary art flourish in a world
where sanity-defying installation sculptures (ranging from coils of rope, sheets
of corrogated metal, a pile of shattered bricks or even the carcasse of a pig
sliced open and left on display in a glass case) are given the protection of a
museum - supposedly the storehouse of all that is fine and worthy in culture?
The "art" of Picasso, Braque, Brancusi, Moore, Epstein and so on looks
positively sane and rational in comparison with some of the work pumped out
today.
> I would say the bulk
> of my work would be dissmissed by some of the more conservative participants
> of this group ....
There is a saying : "Today's revolutionaries are tomorrow's conservatives."A
conservativist is not necessarily a stuffy person blind and resistant to change -
although that is a valid interpretation depending on the context. The pianist and
composer Anton Rubinstein was called a conservative because he rejected the kind
of music practised by Balakirev and Moussorgsky, and which would inevitable lead
to Stravinsky, Schoenberg and the rest. Yet Rubinstein's works are often
exciting, powerful and beautiful and have their moments of "experimental
dissonance".
From a certain point of view Rubinstein becomes a tyrannical ogre, an old fogey
who should be stuffed away in a museum before he does serious harm on new
composers. From another viewpoint, Rubinstein is a champion of musical standards,
a great technician and a skilled artist. Which of these views is correct?
I am not denying the value of "experimentation" in art - innovation has always
breathed life into the arts and rescued it from monotony. But neither should
novelty be valued above quality; and I think this is the situation in the present
day. Art is valued not so much because of its innate skill or beauty, or its
powerful connection with an audience, but because of its "new-ness", its "cutting
edge" nature. Being modern has become something of a fashion, and to be seen as
"antiquated" is worse than passe ; it's a declaration of philistinism.
I think it is more than sad that our culture is in this state. Art is now
regarded somewhat as technology - who would dare hold onto an old ZX81 computer
in the modern world of Pentium II MMX's? Likewise, how can such a "fossil" as the
Italian painter Pietro Annigoni be seriously compared to his contemporaries, who
are busy boldly going where no artist has gone before?
Good art isn't about fashion. Good art isn't good just because its "modern", or
"cutting edge", ultra-avant-garde - or any number of reasons we could conjur up.
Mozart was no revolutionary when it came to stylistic form, certainly not in
comparison to Franz Liszt or Schoenberg. But Mozart is generally accounted the
greater genius because his works are profound expressions of personality that
speak to us more than two centuries after his death.
Novelty is pretty and exciting. But it soon wears off.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
G*rd*n
Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au>:
| Freedom of expression *is* a celebrated thing in art. Speaking personally, I
| appreciate art ranging from that of the ancient Greeks to cinematography. The
| point at issue is whether the term "free expression" (or ones like it) can be
| used to excuse incompetent art, or to exalt as "art" something which is not. This
| issue is complicated by a widely-held belief that art is, at essence,
| indefinable, which has left the gate wide open for the lunatic fringe in
| asserting that anything they wish can be, and is, art. It is more than merely a
| matter of personal taste. Just as an objective critic can appraise a performance
| by a pianist on its merits and defects, so should we also be allowed to judge the
| art of all times. ....
No one's stopping you, as far as I can see -- judge all you
like. People may disagree with you, but that's what makes
horse races, as they say.
In the case of classical West European music, the rules of
performance are rather strict, so critics have a well-known
framework within which to work. Attempting to apply this
framework to Indian, African, Far Eastern, Middle Eastern,
and North and Latin American popular music doesn't work
except for those who want to reject all these other kinds of
music in the first place. This is of course their right,
but they can't expect everybody to agree with them.
Trevor Walz
Iian Neill wrote:
> The "art" of Picasso, Braque, Brancusi, Moore, Epstein and
so on looks
>positively sane and rational in comparison with some of the work
pumped out
>today.
this is true - however, Elvis is positively sane and rational incomparison to most modern bands, while at the time - he was quite controversial. for this reason you cannot judge new art by simply comparing it to the ever-loved classics. the statement "Today's revolutionaries are tomorrow's conservatives." could not be more true in this case.
>Good art isn't about fashion. Good art isn't good just because its
"modern", or
>"cutting edge", ultra-avant-garde - or any number of reasons we
could conjur up.
good art is about a good artist. as an earlier post gave reference to Duchamp's Fountain - this piece was "art" for no reason other than that the artist intended it to be that way. although there was no artistic talent involved -- the piece is still art. the matter of "good" art and "bad" art is not really relavant here - but rather art and non-art.
for some reason - it seems some people feel that by embracing modern art and the less maticulous aspects of the art world it means they are dissmissing the classics and greats of the past. it is possible to embrace both spectrums of the rainbow and still see the pot of gold.
>Freedom of expression *is* a celebrated thing in art.
if this were the case i dont think we would be having this discussion. to say freedom of expression *is* a celebrated thing in art, but only when it meets the conservative standards kindda misplaces the whole idea of free expression.
Bob C
>
> ... Oh yes, it's fair
> enough to say that a minor peer of Ingres' of Delacroix' might have been a weak
> painter technically, and we can even say this with a straight face - but to try
> and criticize a contemporary artist with the same criteria and groups will cry
> out in protest that such judgements are antiquated, ultra-conservative,
> retrogressive or even delusional.
Exactly. Because the criteria for evaluating Ingres or Delacroix are
simply not the same criteria one would use for evaluating much of modern
art. If you decided that people should only paint apples, would there
really be any value in criticizing all other paintings based entirely on
their deviations from appleness? Much of modern art demands that you
first discover what the appropriate evaluation criteria is. I find this
to be part of what makes the appreciation of modern art so exciting.
Finding the proper evaluation criteria does not mean finding some
criteria which the work satisfies. Once having assembled an appropriate
set of criteria, the work may still fail to satisfy it. This is the only
way we can truly weed out those large number of avante-garde artists who
are most certainly taking advantage of the lack of well defined
evaluation criteria. Your approach - the use of inappropriate criteria -
serves no purpose other than to provide yourself with a validation of
the "correctness" of your own tastes.
> But neither should
> novelty be valued above quality;
Novelty is an aspect of quality.
Just thought I'd toss that in! :)
- Bob c.
mark webber
On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, bt wrote:
(snip)
>
> Is there a fundamental gulf between active participants in the "artworld"
> (of course there are many artworlds, but I'm talking about the "fine" one
> that seems to have the highest profile: MOMA, Artforum magazine, CalArts,
> and so forth) and rec.arts.fine? I'm curious whether others have noticed
> the same thing, and--if you agree that this gulf exists--whether the gap
> between professional art specialists and fine-arts newsgroup writers is
> somehow instructive.
>
These are pretty solid observations and I think there is somewhat of gulf.
I don't think that should be surprising though. This newsgroup is a forum
for a variety of different motives, and there will be those who want to
rant about that which they don't understand.
But I also don't think the majority of posters here are in huge
disagreemant with MoMA. I'll bet a lot of people here agree with the
(Alfred Barr?) linear development of Modern Art as presented by MoMA.
(I actually don't - not completely. I think some fine painters get left
out because they don't fit into the linear progression. But that's minor
quibbling.)
I don't find it (the gulf) to be particularly instructive, to answer your
question. What I find instructive are posts that help me see
weaknessess in my own thinking. (That's why I was disappointed that the
Structuralism thread never yielded any solid answers to the question of
criteria in Pomo or minimalism.)
> So, here are two questions to keep things rolling:
(This is the first week I've seen in awhile where things were rolling in
high gear, but this is a good addition.)
> Why is rec.arts.fine so often peppered with sweeping denunciations of all
> (post-)modern art and the institutions that support it?
I don't really think it is. Unless I'm mistaken, only two people have made
such denunciations, Iian and Mani. I don't even read Mani's posts and Iian
seems to want to express his dissappointment in the art world - and to
tell you the truth, I agree with some of what he says. Not about a need
for realism and technique, but what appears to be a fashion - oriented
denial of esthtics.
(And again, I'm open to enlightenment, but as long as Pomo seems to be
criteria-free, it seems to me to be esthetics-free. But I'd still like to
hear more....)
> Why are the discussions that animate the art schools and art magazines so
> little in evidence here?
>
As long as people reply to mani's baitings (which are not much more than
obnoxious spams for his web page) there will be the appearance that there
is less discussion of the sort that animates art schools.
I'm wondering if this idea will fly - would you be interested in citing
articles in art magazines that you think are worth discussing? This would
really interest me.
Regards,
Mark
mark webber
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, Bob C wrote:
> Iian Neill wrote:
> >
> > ... Oh yes, it's fair
> > enough to say that a minor peer of Ingres' of Delacroix' might have been a weak
> > painter technically, and we can even say this with a straight face - but to try
> > and criticize a contemporary artist with the same criteria and groups will cry
> > out in protest that such judgements are antiquated, ultra-conservative,
> > retrogressive or even delusional.
>
> Exactly. Because the criteria for evaluating Ingres or Delacroix are
> simply not the same criteria one would use for evaluating much of modern
> art. If you decided that people should only paint apples, would there
> really be any value in criticizing all other paintings based entirely on
> their deviations from appleness? Much of modern art demands that you
> first discover what the appropriate evaluation criteria is. I find this
> to be part of what makes the appreciation of modern art so exciting.
>
> Finding the proper evaluation criteria does not mean finding some
> criteria which the work satisfies. Once having assembled an appropriate
> set of criteria, the work may still fail to satisfy it. This is the only
> way we can truly weed out those large number of avante-garde artists who
> are most certainly taking advantage of the lack of well defined
> evaluation criteria. Your approach - the use of inappropriate criteria -
> serves no purpose other than to provide yourself with a validation of
> the "correctness" of your own tastes.
>
> > But neither should
> > novelty be valued above quality;
>
> Novelty is an aspect of quality.
>
> Just thought I'd toss that in! :)
>
> - Bob c.
Bob,
This contadicts something I said in another post to Iian, but I use the
same criteria when looking at Ingres, Delacroix and the moderns. And the
Rococo, Baroque, the Classical and just about everything else.
But I still think its the criteria the artists used.
Mark
bt
[...] The point at issue is whether the term "free expression" (or ones
like it) can be
> used to excuse incompetent art, or to exalt as "art" something which is
not. This
> issue is complicated by a widely-held belief that art is, at essence,
> indefinable, which has left the gate wide open for the lunatic fringe in
> asserting that anything they wish can be, and is, art.
Leaving aside for now the mythology of "free expression," we are faced
with an implied assertion of standards for judging artistic competence.
But no standards are specified; instead, Iian seem to say that the correct
standards for competent art are universal and self-evident. (Do I
misunderstand?) Reading further, we learn that individuals or
institutions that support art (or "art") that does not conform to these
unwritten standards are INSANE! (Or, to be exact, "sanity-defying" members
of "the lunatic fringe.") Is this what you really believe? That explains
it--those curators see a halved cow, but because they are insane, they
believe they are looking at a masterful oil painting of angels surrounded
by naked putti.
[...] Just as an objective critic can appraise a performance
> by a pianist on its merits and defects, so should we also be allowed to
judge the
> art of all times.
Far as I know, nobody has suggested that art cannot be appraised, although
I would argue that interesting thinking about art usually doesn't have
much to do with declaring the work to have "correct" and "defective"
components.
I think that you've made an error here, Iian. I suspect that you are
mistaken when you identify "the widely-held belief that art is, at
essence, indefinable." Perhaps it is more accurate to say that you have
been confronted with the belief that ART IS NOT DEFINED IN TERMS OF
SPECIFIC MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES. This is not at all the same as saying
that there are no standards, no definitions, anything is as valid as
anything else, or that these people are insane.
The classical music critic is allowed to say, "His performance
> was very shoddy indeed - the technique was atrocious, there were wrong notes
> everywhere, the conception was distorted, the tone feeble" - yet what can the
> modern art critic (or interested bystander) say? He can say virtually nothing,
> because technique, in Modern Academic circles, has been "debunked" as a valid
> criteria for the objective appreciation of contemporary art.
It is telling that you choose performance of classical piano music as an
analogy for producing new art. The classical performer is attempting to
persuasively interpret a fixed set of instructions from a bygone era.
Nothing wrong with that, but is that really what an artist, who is the
"author" of new works--with all of the historical, economic, technical and
political opportunities and constraints which that implies--is trying to
do?
I propose that the visual artist--the "fine" artist, as he or she exists
in western culture today--is more analogous to the composer, or
composer/performer, of new music.
If the performer of a Mozart piano sonata spends the whole performance
banging his head against the piano bench, never touching the keys or
pedals of the piano, your "objective critic" is correct in pointing out
that this does not reflect Mozart's design. That performer doesn't
evidence the most minimal competence that Mozart would have recognized in
a performer; indeed, had Mozart hired a player who behaved this way, the
"pianist" might have reasonably been suspected of mental instability.
If, on the other hand, this performance is a new work by Iian
Keybordovitch, one can't dismiss it on the same grounds. The audience may
have expected Keybordovitch to strike the piano keys in the civilized
manner they've seen so many times before, but the composer/performer is
presenting something else, perhaps an invitation to reflect on their own
expectations about music performance.
The critic who dismisses this performance as incompetent on the grounds
that Keybordovitch can't even play scales is an incompetent critic. This
is equivalent to condemning the pianist because he did not play a
trumpet. The grand piano on stage, the performer's tuxedo, and the
printed program all set up an expectation that this event is to be
understood in relationship to classical piano performance, but it does not
follow that the performance must conform to the standards of performances
a century or two ago. The performer's ability to play scales or to master
the sonata form is probably irrelevant to evaluation of this new piece.
(I can imagine it being relevant if the piece is intended as a public
renunciation of the well-known virtuosity of Keybordovitch, or as a kind
of "garage band" education-is-for-the-birds aesthetic, but I think you see
what I mean.)
The critic, in this case, has a more difficult job: he or she needs to
identify which histories of music and performance are relevant to
understanding the work at hand; in this case much of that history has
occured since the time of Chopin. In other words, the critic has the job
of illuminating the context(s) in which this work functions. He or she
might be closer to the mark if criticising this performance as a poor
imitation--maybe even "incompetent," on grounds that the performer doesn't
seem to understand what he's doing--of works done half a century ago by
John Cage.
In "Modern Academic circles," as I understand such geometry, technique is
seen as a meaningful element that more-or-less effectively serves the
overall conception of the artwork. In other words, the specifics of
effective technique may be wildly different from context to context. You
seem to think that if you can't judge a work of art against a fixed
eternal universal inherant standard of technical skill, there is nothing
left to say. The vast and varied library of discussions of (post-)
modernist art would seem to effectively refute that idea, unless you
subscribe to the "it's all bullshitism" theory, an argument that seems to
me an attempt to prohibit thought.
> Rubens and many others are still loved by art enthusiasts even today,
centuries
> after their deaths - this says something about their innate quality.
I am not at all sure that this is true. What does it say?
[...] the intellectual
> elite of [our] time ; an elite which worships incomprehensible and
sterile works as
> "masterpieces".
Iian, the charge of "philistinism" that you mentioned elsewhere in your
post doesn't have anything to do with embracing classicism: it means smug
ignorance.
Assuming that you want to clarify and strengthen your arguments, allow me
to make two suggestions:
1. I think it would be valuable for you (as well as for the group
discussion, if you do this here) if you would specify as explicitly as
possible the criteria that you hold for judging art competent. Part two
of this suggestion is to identify the historical origins of those ideas.
2. I also urge you to actually grapple with some examples of art that
seems to be venerated for crazy reasons, i.e., learn more and more about
it until you are sure that you understand what the people who value this
work believe. I expect that you will find very few critics or artists who
claim to worship sterile, incomprehensible masterpieces.
Sincerely,
BT
Andrew Werby
<s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> Freedom of expression *is* a celebrated thing in art. Speaking personally, I
> appreciate art ranging from that of the ancient Greeks to cinematography. The
> point at issue is whether the term "free expression" (or ones like it) can be
> used to excuse incompetent art,
[When one uses the word "competent", there is a referent implied.
Competence lies in being able to do that which one attempts. If one sets
ones sights low, little is required. If one attempts something more
ambitious, then a lot of work must be done to get up to speed. Much
contemporary art is more intellectual than visual, and the skills required
to put it across are more those of a publicist or politician than those
traditionally associated with the artist or craftsperson. While it may not
take an extraordinary amount of skill to create a pile of rubble in the
corner of a gallery, there is a lot of ingenuity that goes into the
cultivation of the gallery owner, lining up critics, attracting patrons,
writing grants, as well as preparing artist's statements, photography and
press releases. If the purpose of a work of art is to attract attention
for the artist, then the whole process must be considered as part of the
necessary skill-set. Christo, for example, considers that attending
meetings and making his case is the crucial artistic component on which he
spends most of his time, and leaves the actual wrapping, or erection of
the physical components of a piece, to volunteers or contractors. One must
remember that art doesn't occur in a vacuum, but is part of a
socio-economic process, which must be considered as a totality. Graduates
of art schools are under tremendous pressure to succeed quickly- there
isn't the luxury of time to develop old-master type skills, which takes
years of patient application. In a culture which has little appreciation
for or understanding of the means by which art (or anything) is created,
it makes more sense to concentrate on playing the Artworld game as well as
possible.]
or to exalt as "art" something which is not. This
> issue is complicated by a widely-held belief that art is, at essence,
> indefinable, which has left the gate wide open for the lunatic fringe in
> asserting that anything they wish can be, and is, art.
[If it isn't essentially undefinable, then what is the definition? When
one crafts a statement that leaves out all the art one doesn't like, it
will be found wanting by those who don't share ones predelictions. We've
played this game here before, and it never leads anywhere, except perhaps
to slanging matches.]
It is more than merely a
> matter of personal taste. Just as an objective critic can appraise a
performance
> by a pianist on its merits and defects, so should we also be allowed to
judge the art of all times. The classical music critic is allowed to say,
"His performance
> was very shoddy indeed - the technique was atrocious, there were wrong notes
> everywhere, the conception was distorted, the tone feeble" - yet what can the
> modern art critic (or interested bystander) say? He can say virtually nothing,
> because technique, in Modern Academic circles, has been "debunked" as a valid
> criteria for the objective appreciation of contemporary art. Oh yes, it's fair
> enough to say that a minor peer of Ingres' of Delacroix' might have been
a weak
> painter technically, and we can even say this with a straight face - but
to try
> and criticize a contemporary artist with the same criteria and groups will cry
> out in protest that such judgements are antiquated, ultra-conservative,
> retrogressive or even delusional.
[If one establishes the rules of a particular game, it is easy to keep
score. Classical music performance, like rugby football, has a
well-established set of criteria for judgement. (This becomes more
difficult when the only rule is that all previous rules are to be
disregarded.) If one judges rugby by the rules of ping-pong, the players
will not have a lot of respect for one's opinion. The Abstract
Expressionists often singled out for scorn in this group were not trying
to play by the rules of classical represenative painting; they set up a
different game entirely, so it is fairly irrelevant to point out their
incompetence- real or imagined- at representation. There were rules to the
game they played, but one would have to spend some time and effort to
understand them sufficiently to be able to tell an AE masterwork from an
inferior effort.]
The fact remains that Michelangelo, Leonardo,
> Rubens and many others are still loved by art enthusiasts even today,
centuries
> after their deaths - this says something about their innate quality.
[I think it says more about our respect for judgements made in the remote
past by people who understood the art of their time. Very few people take
the trouble to re-evaluate the entire corpus of Western art, most are
satisfied to take the word of Vasari and others who were thoroughly versed
in the rules of that particular game, which was accepted universally
enough that even the losers were willing to concede the pre-eminence of
the winners- hardly the situation today.]
I am of the
> opinion that in two hundred years time such painters as Pollock and
Braque will
> only be of interest to historians because of what they reveal of the
intellectual
> elite of the time ; an elite which worships incomprehensible and sterile
works as
> "masterpieces".
[Don't you consider the possibility that they are not totally
incomprehensible, just uncomprehended by you (so far)? These guys were
trying something new, but you are judging by the old rules. They were
asserting a new paradigm, where the artist is a maker of rules, not a
follower of canons laid down before his birth. Evidently, you deny that
artists should have this right.]
Worse than this, there is the very real danger that Fine Art may
> be set back a long time. How can any serious contemporary art flourish
in a world
> where sanity-defying installation sculptures (ranging from coils of
rope, sheets
> of corrogated metal, a pile of shattered bricks or even the carcasse of a pig
> sliced open and left on display in a glass case) are given the protection of a
> museum - supposedly the storehouse of all that is fine and worthy in culture?
[You are setting up a straw man here- I haven't heard many museums
describe themselves this way. I think most would disclaim your definition,
in favor of the more modest goal of preserving some of the more
talked-about art of our time, so that people can make their own value
judgements about it. By the way, most installation art is temporary in
nature; museums generally protect it for only a short time.]
I am not denying the value of "experimentation" in art - innovation has always
> breathed life into the arts and rescued it from monotony. But neither should
> novelty be valued above quality; and I think this is the situation in
the present day. Art is valued not so much because of its innate skill or
beauty, or its
> powerful connection with an audience, but because of its "new-ness", its
"cutting
> edge" nature. Being modern has become something of a fashion, and to be
seen as
> "antiquated" is worse than passe ; it's a declaration of philistinism.
[Remember, nobody is passing out good livings to artists based on any
generally accepted notions of "quality" any more (there are none). Each
must make his or her own way in the world, and the prime necessity is to
set oneself apart from ones fellows. There is no shortage of competent
representationalists, but achieving a likeness is not, since the invention
of photography, a skill much in demand. Since the main way to survive as
an artist is to land one of a small number of hotly contested teaching
jobs; it is no wonder that the academic mindset has taken hold in the
world of art to such a degree. Just as a PHD must be seen to contribute
something new- however minor- to knowledge, an artist is similarly under
pressure to have new ideas about art. And the critics are not likely to
spend much energy explaining visual subtleties to an uninterested public;
there is much more fun in championing a new artistic ideology, or using
the art as a springboard for tangential musings of their own.]
> I think it is more than sad that our culture is in this state. Art is now
> regarded somewhat as technology - who would dare hold onto an old ZX81
computer
> in the modern world of Pentium II MMX's?
[I don't know about this one. New computers are demonstrably better than
old ones- can this be said of art? And early collectors of artists who
"emerge" are richly rewarded- early computer collectors are stuck with a
pile of junk worth virtually nothing.]
Likewise, how can such a "fossil" as the
> Italian painter Pietro Annigoni be seriously compared to his
contemporaries, who
> are busy boldly going where no artist has gone before?
[I don't know- who is he? Is his work up on the web somewhere so we can
talk about it intelligently?]
> Good art isn't about fashion. Good art isn't good just because its
"modern", or
> "cutting edge", ultra-avant-garde - or any number of reasons we could
conjur up.
[Couldn't these be among the reasons it's good?]
> Mozart was no revolutionary when it came to stylistic form, certainly not in
> comparison to Franz Liszt or Schoenberg.
[He came a bit earlier, and didn't live long enough to get bored with what
he was doing either...]
But Mozart is generally accounted the
> greater genius because his works are profound expressions of personality that
> speak to us more than two centuries after his death.
[So Shoenberg gets another 150 years, before we count the votes, right?]
> Novelty is pretty and exciting. But it soon wears off.
[That's why we no longer like Caravaggio- for his innovations in lighting?
And Giotto, for introducing perspective to mural painting? And Mantegna,
for those showy perspective effects? And Leonardo, for all that anatomy?
Isn't it rather the innovative artists who are remembered, while the
plodders are forgotten?]
>
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
New- Artworks Computer Tools for 3d Design and Realization
bt
[...]
>
> I don't find it (the gulf) to be particularly instructive, to answer your
> question. What I find instructive are posts that help me see
> weaknessess in my own thinking. (That's why I was disappointed that the
> Structuralism thread never yielded any solid answers to the question of
> criteria in Pomo or minimalism.)
Well, I made a couple of attempts when I realized that was your question,
sorry if they didn't connect. (Maybe you never saw them: I just discovered
that one of my "structuralism" posts--a reply about Arthur Danto, seems
never to have made it to the server. Sorry to say, I don't usually keep
copies of these --a habit I will change.) Perhaps Bob C's reply to Iian
on this thread, and my own, will seem relevant.
> > Why is rec.arts.fine so often peppered with sweeping denunciations of all
> > (post-)modern art and the institutions that support it?
>
> I don't really think it is. Unless I'm mistaken, only two people have made
> such denunciations, Iian and Mani. [...]
>
> (And again, I'm open to enlightenment, but as long as Pomo seems to be
> criteria-free, it seems to me to be esthetics-free. But I'd still like to
> hear more....)
I don't know where you got the idea that recent art is "criteria-free."
I have seen quite a few other authors of the its-all-crap school ("it" is
defined a little differently each time) when I've poked my head in here
from time-to-time over the years, but you may be right that it is
principally Mani's drum I'm hearing. What puzzles me is not so much the
denunciation of the work as the idea that it is self-evident that there is
nothing in the realm of "Modern Academic Art" worth learning. Strikes me
as remarkably similar to Bible-literalist Christians in relationship to
Modern Academic Biology or Paleontology. I wouldn't care if it seemed a
anomaly in the newsgroup, but I think this is a widely-held presumption in
the culture at large, at least American culture. Think of Morley Safer on
"60 Minutes"--"If I could make it, I know it's not art."
> > Why are the discussions that animate the art schools and art magazines so
> > little in evidence here?
[...]
> I'm wondering if this idea will fly - would you be interested in citing
> articles in art magazines that you think are worth discussing? This would
> really interest me.
I'm reluctant to do this, only because I write rather slowly and I can't
commit to an extended newsgroup correspondence. Given that caveat (i.e.,
I may not participate much), how about Dave Hickey's book "Air Guitar"?
He has been an influential figure in the past couple of years, he is an
unusually engaging essayist, relatively easy to read, and he critiques
what he sees as the dominant tendencies of something along the lines of
the "Modern Academic Art" establishment invoked here. The book is more
about Hickey's negotion of culture than about specific artists, which
might actually make sense for this group--it doesn't depend on familiarity
with a bunch of art that is inaccesible to people who are not in some
particular city. I have a few arguments with Hickey, and I expect many
other readers will, too.
Or, if you want to discuss a specific artist who is in the news, how about
Charles Ray, whose retrospective at the Whitney Museum in New York either
just opened or is about to open: there will be articles galore about that.
bt
few weeks. Robert Hughes' somewhat dismissive review is at
http://www.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980629/the_arts.art.sculptural_24.html
mark webber
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, bt wrote:
>
> Well, I made a couple of attempts when I realized that was your question,
> sorry if they didn't connect. (Maybe you never saw them: I just discovered
> that one of my "structuralism" posts--a reply about Arthur Danto, seems
> never to have made it to the server.
That may be the case - but I did appreciate your effort, and it was
enjoyable.
(snip)
> I don't know where you got the idea that recent art is "criteria-free."
>
Well, again, that was the point of the Structuralism thread. I don't have
that idea - not literally. But I'm embarrassed to say that I don't
understand how one judges pomo, and I've heard repeatedly, and in language
that is often as smug as the anti-modern-speak, that one can't apply or
formulate criteria because its all too subjective and the work
deliberately eludes criteria.
And while this may be wildly inaccurate, it certainly seems to be the best
explanation of the work of, say, David Salle.
> I have seen quite a few other authors of the its-all-crap school ("it" is
> defined a little differently each time) when I've poked my head in here
> from time-to-time over the years, but you may be right that it is
> principally Mani's drum I'm hearing. What puzzles me is not so much the
> denunciation of the work as the idea that it is self-evident that there is
> nothing in the realm of "Modern Academic Art" worth learning.
That is bizarre, yes.
> Strikes me
> as remarkably similar to Bible-literalist Christians in relationship to
> Modern Academic Biology or Paleontology.
Yes, that's an unfortunately strong analogy. It does work the other way,
too, though. People who are sure that 30 centuries of Western tradition
are finished sound an awful lot like fundamentalists warning that we are
living in the end times - as opposed to all the other end times before.
> I wouldn't care if it seemed a
> anomaly in the newsgroup, but I think this is a widely-held presumption in
> the culture at large, at least American culture. Think of Morley Safer on
> "60 Minutes"--"If I could make it, I know it's not art."
>
There's a piece in today's New York Times on the fashionable philistinism
that does a lot of finger pointing and finger shaking. Looks like Official
Washington makes Safer look like Bernard Berenson.
> > > Why are the discussions that animate the art schools and art magazines so
> > > little in evidence here?
> [...]
> > I'm wondering if this idea will fly - would you be interested in citing
> > articles in art magazines that you think are worth discussing? This would
> > really interest me.
>
> I'm reluctant to do this, only because I write rather slowly and I can't
> commit to an extended newsgroup correspondence. Given that caveat (i.e.,
> I may not participate much), how about Dave Hickey's book "Air Guitar"?
I'll look for it.
>
> Or, if you want to discuss a specific artist who is in the news, how about
> Charles Ray, whose retrospective at the Whitney Museum in New York either
> just opened or is about to open: there will be articles galore about that.
>
>
We'll give it a try, and not hold you to it.
Mark
Bob C
>
> On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, Bob C wrote:
>
> >
> > Exactly. Because the criteria for evaluating Ingres or Delacroix are
> > simply not the same criteria one would use for evaluating much of modern
> Bob,
>
> This contadicts something I said in another post to Iian, but I use the
> same criteria when looking at Ingres, Delacroix and the moderns. And the
> Rococo, Baroque, the Classical and just about everything else.
>
> But I still think its the criteria the artists used.
>
At a deep fundamental level I think this is correct - the ultimate
criteria being things like what it expresses, and how it makes you feel.
But these are things unique to yourself. Nevertheless, I think the real
value in criticism and evaluation is exploring the ways in which they
accomplish these things. Since art from different time periods use
different languages and mechanisms for achieving their results, this
calls for evaluation criteria which is unique to those languages and
mechanisms.
I'm sorry, but any explanations I've ever heard of why those languages
and mechanisms are really the same have always just sounded like nothing
more than clever rhetoric. Anything can be simplified to the point that
it is similar to everything else; the question is whether there is any
value in doing so.
- Bob
mark webber
Bob,
I agree with most of what I read by you, and I don't think you are wrong
to feel the way you about criteria, but I don't find the common thread
idea to be clever rhetoric at all. I speak that way about art because that
is my continued experience with art.
What value can be found in this approach is this: I don't think any
student needs to have Pointillism explained as being made of little dots
of color. The dots of color are pretty self evident. But what is less
evident is that Seurat carefully composes in a very classical style, and
comparing Seurat's classicism to, say, Raphael's, will help them focus on
formal issues.
In short, art historians seem to often stress the differences between
periods, instead of stressing what great paintings have in common.
Sincerely,
Mark
Iian Neill
> | appreciate art ranging from that of the ancient Greeks to cinematography. The
> | point at issue is whether the term "free expression" (or ones like it) can be
> | used to excuse incompetent art, or to exalt as "art" something which is not. This
> | issue is complicated by a widely-held belief that art is, at essence,
> | indefinable, which has left the gate wide open for the lunatic fringe in
> | asserting that anything they wish can be, and is, art. It is more than merely a
> | matter of personal taste. Just as an objective critic can appraise a performance
> | by a pianist on its merits and defects, so should we also be allowed to judge the
>
> No one's stopping you, as far as I can see -- judge all you
> like. People may disagree with you, but that's what makes
> horse races, as they say.
>
> In the case of classical West European music, the rules of
> performance are rather strict, so critics have a well-known
> framework within which to work. Attempting to apply this
> framework to Indian, African, Far Eastern, Middle Eastern,
> and North and Latin American popular music doesn't work
> except for those who want to reject all these other kinds of
> music in the first place. This is of course their right,
> but they can't expect everybody to agree with them.
Strangely enough, although Classical (and Romantic and Baroque) periods are my
favourite, I still enjoy the music of the Middle East and South Americas. Each culture
has something different that they communicate in their work. Some of it appeals to me,
while other aspects of it do not. For example, I find it difficult to enjoy Classical
Indian compositions (ragas, etc.) but am entranced by Gypsy melodies. According to
one's normal expectations, though, I should despise this kind of music as being
severely undisciplined and unclassical. Not so. As a matter of fact, the music most
difficult for me to swallow is contemporary 'classical' with its rampant discord and 12
tone scale, etc.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
On Tue, 28 Jul 1998, Bob C wrote:
>
> I agree with that completely.
>
> I realize that in my previous posts it may have sounded like I was
> suggesting that ones entire set of evaluation criteria must change for
> each work of art, but that's certainly not what I meant. Nor did I mean
> that much of what is in different styles can't be described by
> fundamentals common to all art. It can, and it is very useful to try and
> understand what those are.
>
> But at the same time I think there are also criteria that are specific
> to certain styles, or lying somewhere in between generic fundamentals
> and specificity. I haven't given this much thought, but I would guess
> that while the fundamental criteria may be inherently superior, they
> also tend be more abstract, more difficult to understand, more
> ambiguous, and, because of all this, more subjective. The specific
> criteria, on the other hand, can be more precise, achieve a higher
> degree of objectivity and are more accessible to those without
> specialized knowledge or experience. So there are tradeoffs, and a place
> for both types of criteria in evaluating art.
This seems very reasonable and I'm on board with you.
>
> The reactions in my previous posts where mainly towards those who were
> applying very specific criteria to styles in which it made no sense. I
> suppose the rebuttal to this is to say that those criteria (the
> Iian-Deli criteria, for lack of a better explanation) actually are
> fundamental and that this is why modern art is inherently inferior. If I
> were to accept those as fundamental criteria, then I'd have to agree,
> but I think my previous posts demonstrate that I clearly disagree with
> that position. I'm not going to get into the arguments now, but the most
> basic counter-rebuttal is simply to ask why are so many people able to
> get so much appreciation out of modern art if it isn't really art? The
> conspiracy theories can only take you so far...
It really does seem like it would be easier for some folks to say "ok,
lets see, I don't have to like this stuff, but let's see if I can at least
appreciate it - respect it" than putting the present amount of energy
into trying to debunk something that others are enjoying.
>
> Of course, a rebuttal can also come from the complete opposite side -
> those who believe that the fundamental criteria are the only ones which
> count. I clearly disagree with this also, and my previous post basically
> meant to say that the arguments I had heard making this rebuttal usually
> sounded to me like little more than rationalizations or clever wordplay.
> Naturally, it may be that they simply weren't explained well enough for
> me to understand and someday I'll also see the light, but until then, I
> have to stick with my own opinion, and that was it!
>
> - Bob C.
>
>
I understand, and have no argument with you on this.
regards,
Mark
mdeli
>> Is there a fundamental gulf between active participants in the "artworld"
>> (of course there are many artworlds, but I'm talking about the "fine" one
>> that seems to have the highest profile: MOMA, Artforum magazine, CalArts,
>> and so forth) and rec.arts.fine? I'm curious whether others have noticed
>> the same thing, and--if you agree that this gulf exists--whether the gap
>> between professional art specialists and fine-arts newsgroup writers is
>> somehow instructive.
>>
> mark webber writes::
>These are pretty solid observations and I think there is somewhat of gulf.
Yes indeed.
.
Most competent artists make a living at their work. While those you
call "fine artists" and I call Modern Academic Artists are polarized
into two groups; a few lottery winners who sell for their work for
millions and a huge population of failures who can't understand why
their work which is no worse, doesn't make it.
>I don't think that should be surprising though. This newsgroup is a forum
>for a variety of different motives, and there will be those who want to
>rant about that which they don't understand.
Webber's theorem:
Webber understands and those who disagree don't "understand"
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
> I'm not going to get into the arguments now, but the most
>basic counter-rebuttal is simply to ask why are so many people able to
>get so much appreciation out of modern art if it isn't really art?
Its not so many people. Most people are uninterested. One critical job
of the museum curator is to keep out anything that might really
attract the viewer. Furthermore, I don't care whether you call it art
or not. The question is whether an artwork has any merit?
> The
>conspiracy theories can only take you so far...
In Cantors mind its a conspiracy if you don't like what he likes.
>Of course, a rebuttal can also come from the complete opposite side -
>those who believe that the fundamental criteria are the only ones which
>count.
What fundamental criteria?
Iian Neill
> > enough to say that a minor peer of Ingres' of Delacroix' might have been a weak
> > painter technically, and we can even say this with a straight face - but to try
> > and criticize a contemporary artist with the same criteria and groups will cry
> > out in protest that such judgements are antiquated, ultra-conservative,
> > retrogressive or even delusional.
>
> simply not the same criteria one would use for evaluating much of modern
> art.
Why should the criteria we use to evaluate two such disparate artistic
temperaments
as Ingres and Delacroix be any different from the criteria we might use
to assess
Modern Art? If the criteria we use are sufficiently "accurate", then why
should we
need to invent ones? How would it improve our understanding of the
greatest art
works? How is it that we can call both a Chinese ink painting and an
Ingres a work of
art? How is it that culture attaches any value to any art work? What
makes the art of
our times so special that it must be free of the rational judgements of
previous
eras?
> If you decided that people should only paint apples, would there
> really be any value in criticizing all other paintings based entirely on
> their deviations from appleness?
Nowhere in any of my responses have I ever said to anyone else what
subject matter to
paint. And neither have I even told them to paint in a realistic
manner. Firstly,
though, I must apologise for the use of the term "realistic" ; it has
come to assume
a rather broad meaning perhaps somewhat different from its original
application.
Nowadays we call any Modern Art that refers to the outside world as
"realistic", no
matter how crudely drawn or insipidly realized. When I use the term
"realistic", I am
not merely referring to French Academic art of the 19th century - I use
it to embrace
the art of the Greeks, the Romans, the Indians, the
Renaissance/Gothic/Mannerist/Baroque/Rococo/Neo-Classical European
artists ... the
list can go on for quite a while. My use of the term is meant to cover
all art that
draws heavily from Nature (or Reality, if you like) as its keystone. It
does not deny
the importance of abstract elements, such as architectural ornamentation
and
decorative craft-work. These things are also greatly important.
When I lament the lack of any "sound education" in present-day
universities, what I
am protesting against is the absence of any real technical instruction.
Technical
instruction is more than just how to use a colour wheel or how to mix
oils and
turpentine; although it must by necessity include these things. True
technical
instruction for me is a kind of teaching that shows students HOW TO LOOK
at Nature -
how to interpret a three-dimensional reality on a two-dimensional
surface. And this
is merely the beginning. The competent teacher must also try and
inculcate a poetic
sensitivity into his students; we might call it, "A graceful use of line
and
contour", or, "A bold and lively application of colour", "A symphonic
feeling for the distribution of masses" - this is all the soul of the
art that we cherish. And I have hardly even scratched the surface, as
you must feel when you stand before any masterpiece. The words I use are
but Platonic shadows of the Reality, clumsy attempts to grasp something
almost inexpressible.
"Why does the artist need to be educated at all?" someone might well
ask. "Why
can't he just be left to develop his own technique, his own vision." A
fair enough
point - or is it? Why don't we go up to the potential physicist and
demand that he
start from nothing, that he read no one, that he must develop his own
science,
complete and effective in every way, and we'll have it by lunch time,
please. This
might be instructive at the beginning - but how long would we need to
wait to realize
that no matter how much time we give him, our modern Primordial Man is
just not going
to invent the V2 rocket before he reaches his 80th birthday.
Or, if you find this scientific analogy inappropriate, consider it in
other terms.
Why are classical pianists (instrumentalists in general) even taught?
Wouldn't it be
much better for us to hide from them Chopin and Bach, lock away all
treatises on
counterpoint, harmony and orchestration and deny to them any real
technical
instruction on how to play their instrument? What would we end up with?
A plethora of new Mozarts, whose geniuses are so unfettered by the
bounds of tradition that they soar above all their predecessors? Or
would we end up with hundreds of thousands of incompetent amateurs,
struggling to play even the simplest Beethoven? Granted, by chance one
in a million amongst them might have a superlative ear for music and be
able to teach himself from records and CDs - but would he ever be able
to realize his potential,
with all of those early years spent trying to play "catch up"? Would he
even become a
passable concert pianist? Surely by comparison with his educated
predeccesors he
would be unfinished - promising at best.
Now, let's consider Modern Academic Art again. I believe that such a
situation as
one outlined above already exists in the Visual Arts. Do I have any
proof for these
assertions? Well, I haven't been to every university on the planet, or
even every one
in my own country, but I have tried two at opposite ends of the nation,
and have had
frequent contact with students around the world - and with men and women
who have
gone through already. Modern Art is also a very hard thing to escape in
my own city
which seems hell-bent on promoting it, with there being a gallery around
almost every
corner. I only mention all of this because some might reasonably ask
whether I have
any right at all to talk about art.
To return to the discussion ....
> Much of modern art demands that you
> first discover what the appropriate evaluation criteria is. I find this
> to be part of what makes the appreciation of modern art so exciting.
Why does modern academic art demand this of its audience? Why does it
feel it must be
the aggressor, the bully? I know that some academics certainly think
like this, as my
old course in Contemporary Art History emphasised the need to "educate"
the public in
the obscure wonders and meanings of Modern Art. There seemed to be no
effort at all
to "meet them halfway", and no attempt to work on those very things
which we admire
in the art of the Masters. If nothing else, they went out of their way
to "debunk"
any traditional efforts at representialism. Life-drawing classes seem a
staple of
every serious university, but I often wonder why they even bother having
them. The
potential in these sessions is so utterly wasted by teachers who are
most often not
even competent in the very craft they proclaim to teach! Instead they
emphasize the
student's need to go off and teach himself, to make his own path - a
message which
they only needed to tell them on the first day, and then adjourn the
semester. For
what else can they teach them? - they can transmit nothing but dogma,
unless by
chance one or two of these lecturers does have a respect for the kind of
art
practises I have been advocating over the past few months/years.
> Finding the proper evaluation criteria does not mean finding some
> criteria which the work satisfies. Once having assembled an appropriate
> set of criteria, the work may still fail to satisfy it. This is the only
> way we can truly weed out those large number of avante-garde artists who
> are most certainly taking advantage of the lack of well defined
> evaluation criteria.
The strange thing is, I don't blame modern academic artists. They were
encouraged
from the start to abandon any solid technique and told by respected
figures of
authority that this is but a natural step in the evolution of art.
Perhaps they are
even shown metaphorical pyramids which have the ancient Greeks at the
bottom and the
Post-Modernists at the peak ; this re-enforces the belief that just as
technology and
science advances, so does the arts, which seems to me to be a rather
ridiculous
notion. Yes, surely, the Academic art of the 19th century Pompiers is
more "realistic"
in the sense we understand it to be - we who have been brought up in a
world of
photography and the cinema. But the sculptures of Bernini are hardly
less "real" than
the creations of Carrier-Belleuse, Carpeaux or Rodin.
Art SEEMS to show a linear progression because men (and women) of
enormous ability
extended what was previously unimagined into the now commonplace.
Academies were
established which transmitted the collected teachings of those master
artists, with
varying degrees of success, which one must of course expect from any
educational
institution. But the academies at least "spread art around" and by the
19th century
were so efficient that it was turning out hundreds of competent
painters, sculptors,
architects and illustrators.
"Yes, but how many geniuses did it turn out?" you might ask. Well, if
you accept
Edward Manet as a genius, then you have one there straight away. And
Edgar Degas, and
Renoir, and even Cezanne, and Odilon Redon (who whined about the
difficulty of
academic study in his memoirs, and then had the boldness to blame his
teachers for
doing their jobs properly). Then there's Rodin and Henri Matisse and
Pablo Picasso
.... do we need to add more to the list? All of these men may have
denounced their
own training as inhibiting or unnecessarily restrictive, tyrannical,
etc., but they
were all deeply indebted to it, to varying degrees.
What can their successors say? Did Jackson Pollock have a Jean-Leon
Gerome to teach
him like Redon did? - did Rothko have a Coutan like Manet? No, not at
all. This
mythical "progression" in the arts (and hence the term "progressive"
which is applied
to most avant-garde creations) is more akin to a degrading of standards,
to a
loosening of creative discipline - and the term is not an oxymoron, I
assure you. All
creativity has its discipline or else it threatens to become merely
chaos -
uncontrolled, unmastered, and unexceptional.
> Your approach - the use of inappropriate criteria -
> serves no purpose other than to provide yourself with a validation of
> the "correctness" of your own tastes.
I do not see how my criteria are in any way incorrect. Good art is good
are in
whatever time period or country it comes from ; whether its the
arabesques of the
Alhambra or the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. Can we point to one thing and
say : "Look!
There it is! There is greatness! Now, let's measure it and start
comparing it to
other art works ..." No one is pretending that it's THAT easy; but if
art is a
creation of man's intuition and his intellect, why then can we not join
those two
things together in an analysis of it? And to answer your point, that my
criteria
exist only to provide myself with validation for the "correctness" of my
own tastes
.... well, these criteria are not so limited. I have no problem in
recognizing as art
things as disparate as the sculptures on Indian temples, Islamic
architecture, Gothic
painting and sculpture, 19th century Neo-Classicism .... I don't want to
rabbit on
about all of this - it would just take up far too much space. But the
point is that
my criteria allow as "art" things which I do not necessarily have any
great
enthusiasm or even appreciation for - such as much of the Mannerist
period, a lot of
the Rococo church decoration, some distorted works by Gustave Klimt ...
I have no
great love for some of these things, but to me they seem like art, and I
am happy to
appraise them as such. But Jackson Pollock or Rothko? I might be
convinced that
Rothko is an effective decorator, and I don't use the term derogatively,
which it
isn't. If his works are aesthetically pleasing and nothing more, then so
be it : they
achieve that much. But my criteria would demand that I not value that
above more
profound and skilfull creations, like "The Madonna of the Rocks", "The
Ecstasy of
Saint Theresa", "The Well of Moses", "The Sistine Chapel Ceiling", etc.,
etc.
I haven't responded so forcefully in these discussions merely to
defend my
personal tastes, or else I'd be plugging my favourite artists at each
and every
opportunity. I try and mention names as little as possible and only to
illustrate a
certain point : this discussion is not an appropriate forum to be
impressing my likes
and dislikes upon anyone else. Then what am I doing here? - well, I am
trying to draw
attention to what I sincerely believe is a catastrophe, and one made
even more tragic
by the fact that we seem powerless to reverse it.
So long as universities, art galleries, museums and magazines continue
to erode the
boundaries between Art and Non-Art, we will continue to be in the rut
we're already
in. The full impact of this gloomy reality has even penetrated the ranks
of the
academia, where a kind of cynicism to the state of contemporary art is
easily
visible. We often hear mournful cries that, "Nothing is new!" - cries
which only
serve to perpetuate this mad rush to "innovate", a loaded term which
suggests
progress and evolution, but in context more appropriately denotes an
integrity-free
scramble to out-shock, out-repulse and out-outrage the public, curators
and critics.
"Why?" one might ask. "Why has this almost neurotic obsession to shock
possessed
the art world?" - perhaps it is because shocking others is the only way
these people
can get attention - and getting attention means the difference between
starving and
living. And why are they threatened with unemployment and poverty? -
BECAUSE THE VERY
SCHOOLS THEY ATTENDED DENIED THEM ANY TECHNICAL TRAINING WHICH MIGHT
ALLOW THEM TO
EARN THEIR KEEP. On top of this, they were nursed on a diet of mystical
dogma which
makes Modern Art into a kind of religion with critics as the High
Priests, the
Artists as its prophets, and the public that half-contemptuous,
half-tempting
"rabble". "Contemptuous" because they don't understand what Modern Art
is all about -
and even when they do, it's hardly "modern" any more. But worse, not
only do they
don't understand Modern Art, they don't WANT to understand Modern Art.
In general
society the contemporary arts - when thought of at all - is seen as
something of a
joke. More often than not people just pass it by, more captivated by the
TV, the
movies or novels. And "tempting" ... ? Tempting because they're the ones
who pull the
purse-strings - and also because it's a very human thing to want to feel
appreciated,
respected and admired, probably a state of affairs which most
contemporary artists
are denied.
> > But neither should
> > novelty be valued above quality;
>
> Novelty is an aspect of quality.
> Just thought I'd toss that in! :)
And you're right - novelty really is an aspect of quality. But it should
never
replace it. I think we're both agreed on that ; the only points of
contention might
be what "novelty" and "quality" actually represent.
Best Regards,
Iian Neill.
Bob C
>
>
> True
> technical
> instruction for me is a kind of teaching that shows students HOW TO LOOK
> at Nature -
> how to interpret a three-dimensional reality on a two-dimensional
> surface.
I think the key to this sentence is the phrase "for me". Your obsession
with the ability to optically project observable 3D space onto 2D
surfaces is not shared by everyone, and you would be much better off
explaining how these feelings enlighten your own appreciation of art
rather than creating weak arguments about why these are fundamental
truths which should be accepted by everyone and then using these
arguments to denigrate the skill and dedication of any artist whose work
does not satisfy your particular tastes.
I agree, however, that the type of skills and techniques you talk about
are extremely useful teaching tools, not only because of what we learn
but because they provide a relatively object way of creating goals and
measuring our progress towards them. Furthermore, much of our artistic
heritage is based on the type of representation you enjoy and the
ability to draw on that heritage can be a very empowering skill.
A few students, based on their particular desires and motivations, might
legitimately choose to exert their energy on learning other things, but
I think the large majority that take that route are simply taking the
lazy way out. Nevertheless, I completely fail to see why once learned
these skills must then form the basis of everything we learn and do from
that point on.
>
> > If you decided that people should only paint apples, would there
> > really be any value in criticizing all other paintings based entirely on
> > their deviations from appleness?
>
> Nowhere in any of my responses have I ever said to anyone else what
> subject matter to
> paint.
And to think, you had me fooled into thinking you were taking this
discussion seriously. If you're now going apply an absolutely literal
interpretation of analogies and not even consider the context and
meaning with which they were used, then what's the point?
Forgive me for not having the time to read the rest of your post, it got
a bit lengthy and I really do have to get back to work...
- Bob
Molly Fide
>Why should the criteria we use to evaluate two such disparate artistic
>temperaments
>as Ingres and Delacroix be any different from the criteria we might use
>to assess
I got just this far in attempting to read this v-e-r-y
lengthy treatise. The reason I read no further is
the way it looks on my screen. I don't know if
this has something to do with the different
hemispheres we live on or what but I think
if you will limit the length of your lines when you
are composing to 80 characters it will help all of
us to be able to read what you write. Molly F.
bt
respond to this at the moment, and I'm still hoping that Iian will respond
to my earlier post as he has to Bob C's--bt
------------------------------------------
Iian Neill
> HOW TO LOOK
> > at Nature - how to interpret a three-dimensional reality on a
> two-dimensional
> > surface.
>
> I think the key to this sentence is the phrase "for me". Your obsession
> with the ability to optically project observable 3D space onto 2D
> surfaces is not shared by everyone, and you would be much better off
> explaining how these feelings enlighten your own appreciation of art
> rather than creating weak arguments about why these are fundamental
> truths which should be accepted by everyone and then using these
> arguments to denigrate the skill and dedication of any artist whose work
> does not satisfy your particular tastes.
I have said on prior occassions that I considered representationalism as an
essential element to painting and sculpture (that is, sculpture and painting
that is intending to be more than purely decorative). I consider
representiationalism so essential because it forms a bridge between the
subjectivity of the artist's mind and the objective world. Is this more mystical
nonsense? I will re-phrase it, if so : By painting objects recognisable to his
audience, the artist is thus able to communicate to them his most obscure inner
impulses in such a fashion that others - even men and women quite different from
he - will be able to receive that "message". There is no serious denial that
abstract elements do not have aesthetic value - of course they do! The drapery
that sweeps the angels of Bernini's ouvre are surely wonderful abstract gusts of
energy and vitality - by their motion they convey something of the character of
the figure within. We can continue this analogy further and declare that in
every painting there is abstraction present - abstraction in the sense that the
human mind picks and chooses from reality, even without conscious volition, and
what appears on canvas is essentially an abstractization of concrete reality.
Granted, what we call "Abstract Expressionism" is this idea taken to its logical
extreme - nature has been so abstracted that it is not recognizable in any
element of the painting. Instead, the artist must hope that he can convey to his
audience those feelings the realist strives for, but without the same form -
with, in fact, no form whatsoever.
> I agree, however, that the type of skills and techniques you talk about
> are extremely useful teaching tools, not only because of what we learn
> but because they provide a relatively object way of creating goals and
> measuring our progress towards them. Furthermore, much of our artistic
> heritage is based on the type of representation you enjoy and the
> ability to draw on that heritage can be a very empowering skill.
>
> A few students, based on their particular desires and motivations, might
> legitimately choose to exert their energy on learning other things, but
> I think the large majority that take that route are simply taking the
> lazy way out. Nevertheless, I completely fail to see why once learned
> these skills must then form the basis of everything we learn and do from
> that point on.
To me they seem as fundamental as musical harmony; again, you are in your right
to emphasize the "to me" aspect of my statement, as is any else who reads this.
You are under no obligation to believe anything that I say, or to be convinced
in any sense by any particle of my argument. Whether you are or not is not my
concern. My concern, here, is to merely explain what it is I am asserting -
admittedly, with various degrees of success - or failure.
> > > If you decided that people should only paint apples, would there
> > > really be any value in criticizing all other paintings based entirely on
> > > their deviations from appleness?
> >
> > Nowhere in any of my responses have I ever said to anyone else what
> > subject matter to
> > paint.
>
> And to think, you had me fooled into thinking you were taking this
> discussion seriously.
I do take this discussion very seriously. Perhaps too seriously.
> If you're now going apply an absolutely literal
> interpretation of analogies and not even consider the context and
> meaning with which they were used, then what's the point?
If I mis-read your statement above, then I apologize. When you mentioned the
"apples" example, I thought at first that you too were saying I had demanded of
others to paint in a particular way. I have not done so. I have only said that I
think representationalism is the key to art, its cornerstone. What form this
representationalism takes is nearly infinite in its variety.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Iian Neill
> >temperaments
> >as Ingres and Delacroix be any different from the criteria we might use
> >to assess
>
> lengthy treatise. The reason I read no further is
> the way it looks on my screen.
To tell the truth, it has been annoying me as well - and I am the one who wrote it!I am
not sure why the message turned out like that - it happens sporadically. Some letters
come out fine, and yet others are irritatingly chopped up.
> I don't know if
> this has something to do with the different
> hemispheres we live on or what but I think
> if you will limit the length of your lines when you
> are composing to 80 characters it will help all of
> us to be able to read what you write. Molly F.
80 characters, eh? I'll see whether my Netscape programme knows what that means ...
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Iian Neill
> respond to this at the moment, and I'm still hoping that Iian will respond
> to my earlier post as he has to Bob C's--bt
Thanks very much, BT! You have saved us all a lot of eye strain ....
... Now if only I can find the reason my programme actually DOES this.
Regards,
Iian Neill
Iian Neill
> (Post-)Modernist art is held by the people who inhabit the institutions
> that arbitrate "high culture" (museums, universities, art magazines).
>
> 1. These arbiters of taste are FEEBLEMINDED FOOLS who have been taken in
> by slick-talking bamboozlers (academics who are jockeying for turf or
> tenure; artists and their gallery hucksters).
This is one that I find very difficult to believe, although I won't rule out
the possibility. You don't become a university lecturer purely by chance, and
few of them are complete idiots.
> 2. They are BAMBOOZLERS themselves; they ride in the cushy club cars of a
> gravy train powered by pulling wool over the eyes of an art-hungry public
> while lifting coins from the blinded citizens' pockets. They set
> themselves between art and the audience by promoting inscrutible objects
> cloaked in a smokescreen of hoity-toity gibberish which intimidates the
> innocent into submission.
I don't know enough about the "behind the scenes" scene to say whether this
holds any water, but, again, it does not sound impossible. At the same time,
why should we limit it to Post-Modernism? The 19th Century had its little
cliques too who liked to set themselves at an intellectual distance from the
"hoi polloi", Joe Public, and seemed to get some kind of satisfaction out of
feeling superior. This perhaps even manifested itself in Alchemy with its
obscure signs and codes. In a sense, some of this is not that disimilar from
those certain works of Modern Art (and also of pre-20th Century art to -
elitist Symbology is not confined to our times) which de-emphasize the
importance of communication between artist and audience.
> 3. They are LUCKY SAPS, randomly elevated to positions of prestige
> through a nonsensical "lottery" in a nutty universe whose only law is
> conformity to unintelligible dogma.
Not impossible, but again, hardly unique to Post-Modernism.
> 4. They are more-or-less-witting SLAVES OF A MALICIOUS CULT: a frightened
> herd that will charge in any direction their leader points. The leaders'
> agendas vary according to the date and the proclivities of the observer:
> standards of quality (or decency) are undermined in order to put lesbians
> in power, to install a communist government, to greedily furnish their own
> financial coffers, etc.
Here we tread the perilous ground of conspiracy theories. There can be no
certain denying of the existence of cults or groups out to further their own
interests, but who can say how far their power and ambition extends? If there
were such a malicious cult in Post-Modernism, would we, as the public, even
get to hear about it? Unless we have evidence, it all becomes speculation.
> 5. They are ARTISTS, INTELLECTUALS, AND TRADERS IN ART who attempt to
> understand and negotiate the value of art in the present by placing it (or
> producing it, or promoting it) within an informed cultural context. They
> study and acknowledge the arguments and challenges to tradition that
> constitute the intellectual climate in which "advanced" art has been
> produced and understood for many decades. They attempt to identify (or
> produce) work that extends, contradicts or complicates previous art in
> light of that history, and to introduce relevant ideas and histories that
> have been overlooked or suppressed.
I can believe this more of present-day art historians, particularly those who
write about pre-20th century art. (Although not so much the French
anti-Impressionists - there is still some lingering prejudice there, but which
does evidence signs of retreat.) Advances in psychology, medicine, history and
even studies in folklore have helped modern-day art historians take a less
jaded view on the art of previous periods. For example, Bernini was once
considered the epitome of bad taste, but is today generally regarded as one of
the most important sculptors in world history. Granted, for a time there was
opposition in certain circles, with some claiming that Bernini was the
arch-villain of the "truth to materials" school of thought, a rather silly and
biased notion (which I won't go into here.)
> They often favor work that makes
> unusual demands on its audience: this may be one of the key aspects that
> distingushes "fine" art from entertainments that reassure the audience
> through repetition of predictable genres. (The fact that modernist
> "difficulty" itself can be seen as a predictable genre is, perhaps, one
> reason that the leaky umbrella term "postmodernism" keeps getting trotted
> out.)
There is a fine line, I think, between "difficult" work in a good sense, and
"difficult" work in the sense of being needlessly obscure and/or elitist. For
example, if those (pre-)Renaissance religious paintings revolving around
Christian symbology had suffered greatly aesthetically as a result of the
over-emphasis of the importance of this very symbology, then perhaps art
historians today would take a less kind view of them. The miracle is that
there exist works which are instantly comprehensible on one level, and only
grow richer and more profound with deeper analysis.
> They argue with each other. They are sometimes shortsighted, narrow
> minded, territorial, fashion mad, power mad, or otherwise overcome by
> silly enthusiasms.
Yes, this can happen.
> I've perused--and occasionally contributed to--this newsgroup for three or
> four years. I am struck by the persistence of the argument that "modern
> art" (however defined) is either totally corrupt or an outright fraud,
> unworthy of serious consideration. I am surprised that this view occurs
> so often among people who are interested in writing about fine art.
Personally speaking, I think the greatest contribution Modern Art has to make
has nothing to do with technique but with perspectives. It's the thinking
behind some of these thoughts/theories that may prove to be usefull material
in the years to come. Certain theories seem to me to be detrimental, but they
do not have the hold that they used to, although the reasons for this might
not be noble ones. I have a suspicion (only a suspicion, granted) that the
recent "revival" of the interest in representationalism may have more to do
with a reaction against Modernism than it does with any genuine interest in a
renascene of realistic art. The more's the pity, really. What with the
fantastic, tragic and wonderful events of this century as material, the artist
today has more opportunity than ever before to spread his work further, and to
explore avenues previously unsuspected. The problem is that those doors have
been closed by a lack of technical knowledge, and so these new fields remain
relatively "unexploited".
> While one should not discount the kernals of reality in theories 1-4, what
> strikes me is how little respect is commanded by the idea that the
> prevailing artworld orthodoxies are the flawed products of serious
> investigations entered into in good faith by intelligent people. Many
> participants in this group have seemed to reject outright the possibility
> that art works which first appear as an affront to common sense (e.g.,
> Duchamp's urinal, Pollock's allover drips, Don Judd's boxes, Mike Kelley's
> stuffed dolls) might actually have earned their esteem for good reasons,
> even though those reasons are not evident at a glance, or even after
> staring for half an hour.
I am compelled to do this because of my thoughts on the standards behind
art.What can Duchamp's urinal do for art except desecrate, or mock it?
> Why is rec.arts.fine so often peppered with sweeping denunciations of all
> (post-)modern art and the institutions that support it?
Because when people talk about Modern Art there tends to be some similarity
between all of the movements that have popped up - even between such seemingly
disparate ones as "Photo Realism" and "Abstract Expressionism". Perhaps this
similarity is merely to be explained by the fact that both come from the same
century and are thus bound to share certain features. In one sense, though,
many Modern Art movements DO seem united (or at least, DID seem united) in
their shared disregard (or contempt) for 19th century traditions. At the very
least, there is that one thing we can point to. The problem then is to
explain WHY such an attitude has flourished for so long. Art is deeply
informed by philosophy and religion. Religion seems to have assumed less
importance in artistic circles these days, so philosophies and dogmas have
filled the void. For some reason all of these disparate theories has come
under the umbrella of "Modernism", and later, "Post-Modernism", its
self-styled arch-enemy. (Although at times it is hard to see the difference -
particularly in the art works.)
> Why are the discussions that animate the art schools and art magazines so
> little in evidence here?
I didn't find that much discussion going on at my art schools - there was
lecturing on the part of the teachers, but little give and take - at least,
little give and take in any area that directly opposed their teachings!
Regards,
Iian Neill.
bt
[Re: Theory #4:]
> Here we tread the perilous ground of conspiracy theories. There can be no
> certain denying of the existence of cults or groups out to further their own
> interests, but who can say how far their power and ambition extends? [...]
Right. I guess that my sarcasm didn't come across in the writing of this
post. I intended theories #1-4 as caricatures of attitudes advanced in
this newsgroup, e.g. the reference in #3 to Mani's Modern Art "Lottery,"
an assertion that artworld success is completely random. There might be a
germ of truth in them, but I had hoped to suggest that they were far less
realistic and fruitful approaches than #5, which seems the road
less-traveled in the discussions here.
> > 5. They are ARTISTS, INTELLECTUALS, AND TRADERS IN ART who attempt to
> > understand and negotiate the value of art in the present [...]
>
--much snipped--
> > Why are the discussions that animate the art schools and art magazines so
> > little in evidence here?
>
> I didn't find that much discussion going on at my art schools - there was
> lecturing on the part of the teachers, but little give and take - at least,
> little give and take in any area that directly opposed their teachings!
>
This doesn't speak well for the schools you were enrolled in (were these
studio art or art history programs?)... it seems to me that wide-ranging
discussion aimed at developing your thinking about art--in relationship to
history and fashion, to your teachers and peers views, and to the work you
are making--is a central component of a good art education.
But I guess we disagree: such discussion has little place in the
educational tradition -- passing down an age-old technical tradition from
master to apprentice, without questioning the viability of these
techniques for artists in the present -- that you support in your posts.
BT
PS, Iian: I'll try to write more in a day or two--I'm headed out of town
today. Thanks for the response, and my fingers are still crossed that you
will also find time to address my earlier, lengthier reply to you in this
thread (the one that talks about head-banging pianists, etc.)
mdeli
technique is of no importance I have taken the liberty of renaming and
describing some of the important courses offered to them by their
favorite Modern Art Academy.
Note:
By the time you finish your training you will be a certified ARTIST
and you will get a coveted certificate to prove it.
Drawing courses should be renamed Paper Dirtying.
-You will be expected to produce one realistic drawing of an egg in
order to convince yourself that you have mastered realism and then
proceed to more serious stuff. Here you can smear away on large
newsprint pads. You will be taught all methods of how to excuse the
academic errors and the little sloppinesses you produce, as
experimental distortions.
Design courses should be called "Kindergarten Theory for slow
learners."
-Here you will learn all those modern academic techniques including
advanced dripping flipping and snipping. Although students have been
doing this for the last fifty years you will be given the impression
that this is all very new, highly creative and important.
Art history should be called "Art Mythology."
-Here you will learn that all past art merely anticipated the
Impressionists whose evangelical struggle to overcome their evil
enemies led to the glories of Avant Garde Modern Academic Art which
is presently admired by anyone who claims intellectual grace.
Painting courses should be called "Canvas Alteration." (course
requirement-the above three courses)
-Here you will learn the latest methods of how to convince yourself
that your product enhanced by your lack of drawing skills, is an all
new, very serious, self expression which was designed to exhibit
honesty, sincerity and emotion rather than any useless technique. VERY
NICE teachers will instruct you in accomplishing this.
I have always suggested a new course called "Artspeak One." This would
chrystalize the ideas in all the above courses.
-Besides sharpening your illogical abilities, mastery of this course
will teach you how oppose any detractors by dropping cryptic terms.
The latest issues of the most prominent Artzy Fartzy magazines will be
required reading with great attention to the lingo used to describe
the masterpieces therein. The public dangers of anything labeled as
kitsch, commercial and illustration will be discussed in lectures by
important guest critics.
At term’s end you will be examined on your abilities to analyze the
ethereal essences of Mondrian in at least ten thousand words or more.
Mastery of this course should enable you to defend Abstract
Expressionist work against any and all negativism’s.
PS
I suppose my detractors here will write the usual stuff about my
"ranting negativism." I sincerely advise them to consult any
unrecognized, technically inept disgruntled genius graduates who
failed to win the Modern Academic Art lottery and listen to their
extensive ranting negativism about art and money.
Iian Neill
> > certain denying of the existence of cults or groups out to further their own
>
> Right. I guess that my sarcasm didn't come across in the writing of this
> post.
The sarcasm came across, but I thought that the points were valid enough to
warrant consideration and/or refutation since people seem to use those arguments
sometimes.
> > I didn't find that much discussion going on at my art schools - there was
> > lecturing on the part of the teachers, but little give and take - at least,
> > little give and take in any area that directly opposed their teachings!
>
> This doesn't speak well for the schools you were enrolled in (were these
> studio art or art history programs?)...
The Fine Arts course covered studio practise, theory and art history.
> it seems to me that wide-ranging
> discussion aimed at developing your thinking about art--in relationship to
> history and fashion, to your teachers and peers views, and to the work you
> are making--is a central component of a good art education.
I think such discussion is valuable as well, but in the hands of incompetent
teachers can quickly become redundant. Gridlock ensues if there is at least one
person who holds views in opposition (or at least significant difference) to the
mainstream ones being inculcated there.
> But I guess we disagree: such discussion has little place in the
> educational tradition -- passing down an age-old technical tradition from
> master to apprentice, without questioning the viability of these
> techniques for artists in the present -- that you support in your posts.
Well, questioning the very techniques you are passing down would seem to be
counter-productive to the act of passing down those techniques. But I don't see
the harm in discussing a wide variety of issues in class, so long as people keep
in mind what art is. If they are hazy on this subject, the discussions can easily
wander and become at best time-wasting or at worst obfuscating and confusing.
> PS, Iian: I'll try to write more in a day or two--I'm headed out of town
> today. Thanks for the response, and my fingers are still crossed that you
> will also find time to address my earlier, lengthier reply to you in this
> thread (the one that talks about head-banging pianists, etc.)
I will need to ask you to wait a little longer. I only have time to pen this brief
response tonight (and a couple of other short replies), but fully intend to answer
your post as soon as I can. In fact, I look forward to it - I always enjoy reading
your contributions.
Regards,
Iian Neill.