The Education of the Artist
dre...@lanminds.com
Anonymous wrote:
Clearly, the question "Theory or Practice?" makes a false distinction: the
two are inextricable.
Bob Cantor wrote:
Perhaps it's time to rethink our vocabulary. The avant-garde of art has
increasingly blurred the distinction between practice and theory,
between art production and philosophy and psychology and communication.
There was always a relationship, but in modern Western art, with few
exceptions, it's only relatively recently that these concepts have been
allowed to overshadow the traditional visual function of art.
...It almost seems a given that a piece of artwork should be capable of
demonstrating value on its own without explanation. Of course, this
assumes we have all the background necessary to be able to appreciate
the work on its own terms. Caravaggio was trashed by critics who didn't
have the background to understand how the depiction of an ordinary or
even homely looking person could be beautiful. But suppose you have all
the background that the artist has, but still require an explanation to
be able to see anything of value in their work. Does this alone say
something about the lack of value in the work? It may seem right that a
work must have value on its own, but can anyone logically explain why?
And is my wanting that explanation an art question or a philosophy one?
[I suppose that agreement on these issues is not possible because we each
approach a piece of art wanting different things. Many people still seem
to want
every image to tell a story, and become frustrated if they can't find one.
These
types have been somewhat stymied by the enigmatic nature of most
contemporary art, so they concentrate on the stories of the artists
instead, seeing
the work as illustrations of various emotional states which can then be
keyed to
a narrative. Others want to be uplifted in some way, and fault the artist
if they
don't get that feeling from the work in question. I'd say Carravaggio's
detractors
would fall into this camp- they simply didn't feel that the "street
people" of his
day had any place in a work of fine art, even when protrayed as Virgin
Mothers
or mythological heros. I don't think it's a question of "background",
which they
certainly had as far as the art of their time was concerned. Caravaggio
had a
major influence on other artists, who felt invigorated by the liberties he
took
with what had been a fairly stultifying artistic tradition, but it is not
really fair
to disparage his critics for failing to fortell the future- this art made
them feel
uncomfortable, and they didn't look to art for that sort of feeling. Now,
of course,
people do expect this, attribute their feelings of disgust or horror to
esthetic
enlightenment, and consequently exit feeling uplifted.
Nowadays, most of the people who look at contemporary art at all are
either
artists themselves, who of course have axes to grind, constantly comparing
their
own art to that on view and naturally deciding that the latter comes up
short in
important respects; or they are academic types who must perforce discern
the
application of some theory or other or perish. For the fellow-artists, it
is mostly
bravura technique that has the power to dazzle, while the academics are
most
impressed by the words put forth in justification, no matter what the art
looks
like. This doesn't mean that an academic review will deal with the issues
raised
by the artist, however- most of these critics have their own hobby-horses
which
they prefer to ride to the exclusion of all others, and tend to use the
art as a
springboard for launching as quickly as possible into their own tirades.
Hapless members of the general public who wander in are usually not
susceptible to either the work's technical merits or its accompanying
verbiage,
because they lack sufficient understanding of how a work of art - or
anything,
for that matter- is made, and couldn't care less about the theory, even if
they
could understand the jargon it is couched in. It seems that a hard-wired
screening mechanism in the brain, the one that protects against mental
overload
while highlighting things that are personally important, prevents them
from
even seeing most works of art. It might be interesting to set up an
experiment in
an art museum to see which type of art is the most memorable to most
people,
and which is totally screened out.
So when we consider the question of a work of art "demonstrating value on
its
own", we must consider to whom it is to give this demonstration. For most
difficult-to-understand works of contemporary art, this comes down to the
artist
him (or her) self, and perhaps an internalized ideal viewer fully primed
with
everything necessary to appreciate it. Sadly, given the fragmented nature
of
today's artworld, such a person rarely appears in real life; (and hardly
ever with
sufficient funds to back up his or her opinion by acquiring the work
itself.)
And to respond to the question Bob poses above on the value of art, which
seems to be neither about art nor philosophy, but economic; its value can
be
increased by widespread theorizing, because that will draw in the academic
critics, who still pay some attention to art for their own ulterior
motives, and
have a function analagous to that of birds in seed dispersion- they eat it
up,
digest it, and favor us with the results. ]
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Bob Cantor
dre...@lanminds.com wrote:
> It might be interesting to set up an experiment in
> an art museum to see which type of art is the most memorable to most
> people, and which is totally screened out.
>
Here's a generalization from my own observations. You watch people
walking through a
gallery of traditional art, and they move methodically from one piece to
another never
saying a word. Some pieces they walk by without even slowing down. You
watch them in a
gallery of modern art, however, and you see them frequently stopping,
pointing, asking
questions, perhaps laughing at the work, but very rarely just ignoring
it. I have many
friends who will consider me the "art expert" if we are attending a
gallery togethor.
They frequently ask questions about the modern art: "why is this art?
why is this here?
do you really like this? couldn't any child do this just as well?" In
the traditional
gallery, they'll never ask a thing. I think there is something important
to be realized
from this, but I haven't yet thought about it seriously enough to figure
out what.
- Bob
Bob Cantor
dre...@lanminds.com wrote:
> ... I'd say Carravaggio's detractors would fall into this camp-
> they simply didn't feel that the "street people" of his
> day had any place in a work of fine art, even when protrayed as Virgin
> Mothers or mythological heros. I don't think it's a question of "background",
> which they certainly had as far as the art of their time was concerned.
I have to half disagree with this. Certainly there is the question of
different
people wanting different things, in which case background (or knowledge,
or
understanding, or whatever we want to call it) may not make a
difference. But
there do exist many examples of things which we call an "acquired
taste".
I see reviews of my favorite jazz musicians in which some of their
records are
described as more "listenable" then others. I, of course, think they're
all very
listenable, but 10 years ago I might have winced at listening to a lot
of the stuff
that I find beautiful today. I think painting is very much the same way.
People see
something radically new and they just don't have the background to truly
appreciate it.
Many people will work to acquire that knowledge, for a variety of
different reasons,
just as many people will not.
Thus leaving my initial question unanswered: what is wrong with a work
of art that
requires it's own unique understanding and background before you can get
any
appreciation from it? Why does it have to somehow stand on its own
before we are willing
to invest any time learning more about it? If the appreciation of the
work lies purely
in the concept being explained, is this intrinsically a bad thing?
Keep in mind that I'm not arguing in favor conceptual art or any of the
other related
genres which might fall into the "requires explanation" category. I'm
not particularly fond
of this type of work myself, but I would like to know whether this is a
personal dislike
or an inherent flaw in the very concept of conceptual art. My logic says
one thing while
my intuition says the other.
- Bob
Andrew Werby
Bob Cantor wrote:
>what is wrong with a work of art that requires its own unique
>understanding and background before you can get any appreciation
>from it? Why does it have to somehow stand on its own
> before we are willing to invest any time learning more about it?
[The practical difficulty here is that hardly anybody will invest time
and energy in something that he or she doesn't have any initial
interest in or attraction to. Why should they? There are enough things
in the universe intriguing enough to reward the effort expended in
their exploration that, absent exterior compulsion, there is simply no
reason to spend time instead in trying to find something to like about
the very art that one finds unappealing. While it is certainly possible
to acquire a taste for something new as ones tastes mature, this does
not involve forcing oneself to study something which doesn't appeal,
but rather widening ones range of taste so that the previously
unappealing suddenly seems more interesting, and thus merits
further study.
While there may be people who are further along this road than you
may find yourself, the process can't be forced; although it is possible
for one's intellectual curiosity to be stimulated even in the absence of
visual interest. But being a visually oriented person, I find it hard to
sustain interest in visual art that doesn't work in visual terms. If
what an artist has to say is primarily verbal, then his essay, not his
painting or sculpture, is the art-form to pay attention to. If the words
are especially compelling, then sure, take another look at the art, who
knows, you might see something in it you didn't before. But for me it
usually works the other way around- there has to be something about
the art itself that arouses my curiosity enough to read the artist's
statement or a critical essay; failing that, I'm off to look at
something
else.]
> If the appreciation of the
> work lies purely
> in the concept being explained, is this intrinsically a bad thing?
[Do we have to define "bad" now? We weren't doing all that well in
coming to a consensus on "art". But my feeling is that different media
are best for different things. For defining and explaining concepts, the
written word is the best tool: one word can be worth a thousand
pictures for this purpose. However, there are subtleties of line, form,
color, and composition that can never be adequately explained in
words- this is the natural realm of visual art. While it may be
possible to cut down a tree with a screwdriver or drive a screw with
an axe, the further one extends the functions of these tools into new
territories, the less well-suited to the task at hand one might find
them to be.]
Cindy Bernard
Artwork cannot "stand on its own" outside of the moment in history in
which it is perceived and the circumstances of the perceiver.
All artwork consists of layers of meaning - if *all* someone uneducated in
art history can appreciate about a work of conceptual art, say a Lawrence
Weiner (to address an artist whose words are "visual"), is the color of
the paint or the quality of the lettering then I have no problem with that
(and I bet he doesn't either) - if the Weiner's phrase conjures a
sculpture/painting in the perceiver's head but they don't recognize it at
that moment maybe that memory will come back another day - if they are
intrigued by the work they'll go to the reading room of the museum or to
the desk of the gallery and ask some questions - if not they'll walk out
the door and look at something else.
At the beginning of each semester I give my students the Tompkins article
"Duchamp in New York" and show them an interview with John Baldessari -
this inevitably leads to a discussion about what is or isn't art - my goal
is to lead them away from what I believe to be a boring question about
exclusion and rules to the more interesting question of function - "let's
just suspend the "rules" and assume it is art - how does it function once
we do that"......
--Cindy
In article <34158B...@lanminds.com>, Andrew Werby
<dre...@lanminds.com> wrote:
--
USC School of Fine Art - Matrix
www.usc.edu/dept/matrix/CB/
Andrew Werby
cber...@earthlink.net (Cindy Bernard) wrote:
Subject: Re: The Education of the Artist
Newsgroups: alt.sculpture, rec.arts.fine, alt.art.colleges
(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
alt.sculpture,rec.arts.fine,alt.art.colleges)
Artwork cannot "stand on its own" outside of the moment in history in
which it is perceived and the circumstances of the perceiver.
[I realize this is post-structuralist gospel, but I totally disagree.
In fact I would make the opposite assertion, that a work of art can
be appreciated best when it has stood the test of time, when the
inessentials, such as the historical reasons for its creation, have
fallen away, and the art is able to be perceived on its own terms.
The moments of history which produced the cave-paintings at Altamira
are fairly remote, but the art shines forth regardless. While an
understanding of the religio-cultural practices of the time would
add a little intellectual resonance to the viewing experience, it
is by no means essential to their appreciation, and can in fact get
in the way.]
All artwork consists of layers of meaning - if *all* someone uneducated in
art history can appreciate about a work of conceptual art, say a Lawrence
Weiner (to address an artist whose words are "visual"), is the color of
the paint or the quality of the lettering then I have no problem with that
(and I bet he doesn't either) -
[But would this person get an "A" in your class?]
if the Weiner's phrase conjures a
sculpture/painting in the perceiver's head but they don't recognize it at
that moment maybe that memory will come back another day - if they are
intrigued by the work they'll go to the reading room of the museum or to
the desk of the gallery and ask some questions -
[Or if they are in the class and want that "A", they can pretend to be
intrigued....]
if not they'll walk out
the door and look at something else.
[Layers of verbal "meaning" can be superimposed on a work of visual art,
but have little to do with its essence. One can hear a "pastorale"
symphony, and conjure up mental pictures of cows, but reading up on cows
is not going to help the listener understand what the music is really
about. I'm not denying the possibility of hybrid art-forms- certainly the
verbal and the musical can merge and become a song, for instance- but both
poetry and music can also exist on their own, and need not refer to each
other for meaning. Abstract artists fought long and hard for the right to
be as free from having to make verbal "sense" as are musicians, but it
seems the Academy is as hard to fight as City Hall.]
At the beginning of each semester I give my students the Tompkins article
"Duchamp in New York" and show them an interview with John Baldessari -
this inevitably leads to a discussion about what is or isn't art - my goal
is to lead them away from what I believe to be a boring question about
exclusion and rules to the more interesting question of function - "let's
just suspend the "rules" and assume it is art - how does it function once
we do that"......
[Why must the "rules" be suspended before they are learned? It is fun to
break rules once you know them, but having nothing to rebel against will
only produce apathy- and there's plenty of that already. The question of
"function" is meaningless if the art in question doesn't work for you the
perceiver; and if it does, discussing it will generally not make things any
clearer, unless of course it is the sort of thing that is heavily reliant
on verbal referents, (which comprises a small subset of art as a whole,
and not its finest examples.) I suppose teachers have a professional bias
towards art that leads to and benefits from discussion- perhaps this is a
good thing, because it will beget a reaction away from the silly over-
intellectualized art so much in vogue today and toward the purely "retinal",
which is where the true mysteries of visual art lie, in my humble opinion.]
Craig W.
The reception of art is conditional. Sometimes art manifests itself on the
surface and without explanation while, other times, quite a lot of
education/experience/investment may be required in order to sense the art
in a rarefied piece. Personally, I no longer have problems with where art
comes from or with what is art and what is not art. The real issue is in
distinguishing art that is truly meaningful in our lives whether it be a
portrait, film, symphony, happening, or installation.
--
Craig W.
Cindy Bernard
In article <drewid-1309...@ppp29.lanminds.com>,
dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> cber...@earthlink.net (Cindy Bernard) wrote:
> Subject: Re: The Education of the Artist
> Newsgroups: alt.sculpture, rec.arts.fine, alt.art.colleges
>
> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
> alt.sculpture,rec.arts.fine,alt.art.colleges)
>
> Artwork cannot "stand on its own" outside of the moment in history in
> which it is perceived and the circumstances of the perceiver.
>
> [I realize this is post-structuralist gospel, but I totally disagree.
> In fact I would make the opposite assertion, that a work of art can
> be appreciated best when it has stood the test of time, when the
> inessentials, such as the historical reasons for its creation, have
> fallen away, and the art is able to be perceived on its own terms.
> The moments of history which produced the cave-paintings at Altamira
> are fairly remote, but the art shines forth regardless. While an
> understanding of the religio-cultural practices of the time would
> add a little intellectual resonance to the viewing experience, it
> is by no means essential to their appreciation, and can in fact get
> in the way.]
You misunderstand me - art never stands on its own not because it must be
read only from the original context of its making but because it is always
being reread in the current moment - and the circumstances of that moment
will always influence the perception of the work - for example the way
one looks at the Mona Lisa - behind a rope, behind bullit proof glass,
ultimately affects the way we read the work....
--Cindy
Andrew Werby
Cindy Bernard wrote:
> > Artwork cannot "stand on its own" outside of the moment in history in
> > which it is perceived and the circumstances of the perceiver.
Andrew Werby wrote:
> > [I realize this is post-structuralist gospel, but I totally disagree.
> > In fact I would make the opposite assertion, that a work of art can
> > be appreciated best when it has stood the test of time, when the
> > inessentials, such as the historical reasons for its creation, have
> > fallen away, and the art is able to be perceived on its own terms.
> > The moments of history which produced the cave-paintings at Altamira
> > are fairly remote, but the art shines forth regardless. While an
> > understanding of the religio-cultural practices of the time would
> > add a little intellectual resonance to the viewing experience, it
> > is by no means essential to their appreciation, and can in fact get
> > in the way.]
> You misunderstand me - art never stands on its own not because it must be
> read only from the original context of its making but because it is always
> being reread in the current moment - and the circumstances of that moment
> will always influence the perception of the work - for example the way
> one looks at the Mona Lisa - behind a rope, behind bullit proof glass,
> ultimately affects the way we read the work....
[It seems to me that given the same viewing circumstances- and this
equaliztion is what the white walls of a gallery are supposed to be about-
some work will stand on its own, and some will not, although this depends
on the sensibilities of the individual viewer. While it is certainly possible
to enhance or degrade a work of art by varying the conditions of its
exhibition, that doesn't really prove anything about the work itself, does it?
If a viewer comes in with a headache, for instance, that person's experience
with a work of art will most likely be the worse for it, but I don't see how
you get from there to saying the work is somehow dependent on a healthy viewer-
we get from it what we can at the time. Obviously different people will have
different "takes" on a painting, depending on their different circumstances;
but are we supposed to evaluate art based on polling data, or on what it
means to us individually?
It also seems that the repeated use of the word "read" here betrays a certain
mindset: equating the perception of a work of art with the linear process of
verbal assimilation may lead one to expect the same sort of experience from
visual art as from literature, when they are (or can be) quite distinct. When
we were talking about art "standing on its own", the question was whether
verbal (critical, theoretical, art-historical) considerations should be allowed
to mediate our experience with the work itself, or whether our primary concern
is with its visual impact.]
Andrew Werby
sch...@lookingglass.net
> You misunderstand me - art never stands on its own not because it must be
> read only from the original context of its making but because it is always
> being reread in the current moment - and the circumstances of that moment
> will always influence the perception of the work - for example the way
> one looks at the Mona Lisa - behind a rope, behind bullit proof glass,
> ultimately affects the way we read the work....
I too misunderstood you. But your correction here is still speaking
of the superficial aspects of viewing art through the ages. The
Mona Lisa is still the Mona Lisa, regardless of the trappings she
is viewed in. I remember when I first actually saw this work. Having
heard all my life about what a GREAT work it is, it took on a size
larger than life. And when I actually saw it, I was shocked at the
small size. I was expecting monumental to go with the reputation.
But that is still superficial stuff and has nothing to do with who
the artist was, why the work was created, who the Mona Lisa was,
or any of the symbolism that has come to be associated with the
work.
Since this thread is about Education of the Artist, that is one
of the essentials of education -- to learn the whos, whys, and
wherefores so that we can come to the work, no matter what age
we live in, with an educated understanding and be able to reason
for ourselves the merits of the work and understand why this
or that masterpiece is still considered a masterpiece irregardless
of the time in which the viewer participates.
T'bird.
sch...@lookingglass.net
In article <drewid-1509...@ppp1.lanminds.com>,
dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> Cindy Bernard wrote:
>
> > > Artwork cannot "stand on its own" outside of the moment in history in
> > > which it is perceived and the circumstances of the perceiver.
> Andrew Werby wrote: (among other things)
> [the question was whether
> verbal (critical, theoretical, art-historical) considerations
>should be allowed to mediate our experience with the work itself,
>or whether our primary concern is with its visual impact.]
Good answer, and the example of the Mona Lisa used elsewhere in
this thread is a good one. For me, had I not ever heard of the
Mona Lisa before actually seeing the work hanging in the Louvre,
I might have passed by without so much as a second glance, so
small is the painting and so conditioned are we becoming to
thinking 'bigger is better' in contemporary art works. And
even so, the subject of the Mona Lisa may or may NOT have been
of any interest to me. But I first heard of the Mona Lisa in
my very first art lesson somewhere back there in my distant
childhood. And in subsequent years, I continued to have it
told to me what a GREAT MASTERPIECE this
particular work is -- maybe THE definitive painting of all time,
etc etc. So when I actually had an opportunity to visit the
Louvre, she was one of those 'must see' works for me, along with
Winged Victory and other GREAT MASTERPIECES. Had it not been for
my art education, I suspect I might have found nothing remarkable
about the work at all. How embarrassed I would have been later
when someone, having learned I'd been to the Louvre, asked me
what I thought of the Mona Lisa. Even more embarrassing would
be having to admit I had never heard of her. T'bird.
Karen Jacobs
Well put, Craig... it won't satisfy those requiring a bound volume(s) of
rational, but you've said it exactly the way I interpret what ART is all
about. To different cultures, and cultures within cultures... there are
enough meanings/definitions to encompass every faucet of creativity and
every level of appreciation.
But if we all agreed that this is the case... discussion would cease,
and that would be a bore!
.....Karen Jacobs.....
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm
JP
Be careful while you look at the Mona Lisa. I got my wallet stolen by a
pick-pocket there. : (
At least he was a professional.
JP
Marilyn
sch...@lookingglass.net wrote:
>
> Good answer, and the example of the Mona Lisa used elsewhere in
> this thread is a good one. For me, had I not ever heard of the
> Mona Lisa before actually seeing the work hanging in the Louvre,
> I might have passed by without so much as a second glance, so
> small is the painting and so conditioned are we becoming to
> thinking 'bigger is better' in contemporary art works. And
> even so, the subject of the Mona Lisa may or may NOT have been
> of any interest to me. But I first heard of the Mona Lisa in
> my very first art lesson somewhere back there in my distant
> childhood. And in subsequent years, I continued to have it
> told to me what a GREAT MASTERPIECE this
> particular work is -- maybe THE definitive painting of all time,
> etc etc. So when I actually had an opportunity to visit the
> Louvre, she was one of those 'must see' works for me, along with
> Winged Victory and other GREAT MASTERPIECES. Had it not been for
> my art education, I suspect I might have found nothing remarkable
> about the work at all. How embarrassed I would have been later
> when someone, having learned I'd been to the Louvre, asked me
> what I thought of the Mona Lisa. Even more embarrassing would
> be having to admit I had never heard of her. T'bird.
>
I agree with Andrew Werby, who used the example of the walls of Altimira.
As for the "Mona Lisa" - I have only seen it in reproduction, the last
time I saw it was on TV. To me, it was breathtaking. The expression on
the beautiful face, the mysterious landscape in the background - I
found it to be unutterably beautiful. Perhaps our modern way of showing
a masterpiece as a commodity with all the security necessary detracts
from the work. The image is "tatooed on my brain" (from Seinfeld).
The masterpiece has inherent value and beauty which is beyond time and
place.
M.