How important should an ART EDUCATION be?

[daniel_ob]

No one here makes groups by education and it is not intention, so there is no elite group. Even if a friend curator proclaims one�s work, a history will clear it, if it should. On other side anyone can have its own opinion about just anything and nothing is wrong with it. If we all think the same what we will talk about? And on very end prerequisite for artwork is bad work, that is, without bad work good work will not exist. To produce artwork no any kind of education is needed. I can say even that just anything made is artwork, just we will have good calculators and bad calculators, and calculators that so good that are of historical importance. Do you think that no one can make the same scene as Robert Frank, even better? Many make it much better, but so what. It will never ever lessen Frank�s importance.

 

Again: there are top notch works from non Art Academy guys. But how many Ansels, Westons, Einsteins,�?

 

Education work is same in any activity so let me make one more simple example what for is education in engineering, but the same principle is in art, law, medicine,...

When I got my first job in design department there was a technician and engineer. Technician always get his job must faster than engineer, and all liked him.

One day he got a job to design a machine as a set of special hammers (c. 2 lb each) that turns with 3000 revolutions per minute. If wheels of your car turns that speed the car will run 244 km/h (or 150mph). And as usually he finished the design quickly and all claped him. Then all summoned to cheers to the test. The rotor got its speed and one hammer penetrated the 1/2 inch steel plate case and on its fly removed part of head of one clapper. The reason for failure was that the rotor entered into �critical speed� that is very high amplitude vibration. Well, the designer claimed that he never knew what is �critical speed� for it is nor subject in high school nor he could learn it himself. After that all his work was questioned and reexamined, and the company hired another technician for the same position. And when one open engineering handbook with around 1000 pages that matter is presented on around a half page. Just a small detail in design work. As said before the same can (and does) happens to engineers too. And this is not investigated story.

 

And all is that simple, and it is what I think.

[daniel_ob]

And more

 

what less problems one see the more he produces. When you see a guy make 10 good shoots a day (in average), pretending to be good artist, forgive him for he do not know what he is doing. Do not count bracketing and bursting in past for it was a must.

I inserted "good shoots" to separate comercial work (by markup) of the same guy.

[beeman458]

"How do you feel about this?"

 

----------------------------------

 

"No one here makes groups by education and it is not intention, so there is no elite group."

 

There are those here who do attack and are prejudiced by education.

 

The more threads you read and participate in, the more you come to realize the truth of the above point.

 

The point I was making didn't have to do with the prejudices of education that this board is well known for exhibiting but that it was one superficial example a participant here will, over time, readily see and via example, expose in the process what lies beneath; how this "need" or "demand" of an artistic education (creating an inner core of like minded intellectuals) influences both one's thinking (acceptability) and the bias' in which photographic art is judged as to what is considered noteworth.

 

"Birds of a feather."

 

I'm all for an artistic education so as to "understand" the past so as to understand the unmarked path of the future but the blatant elitism or lack of open criticism that's exhibited in conversation is very telling indeed; who's vilified and who's held in esteem?

 

Would one here listen to what an uneducated politically conservative brick layer, plumber or dishwasher might have to say on matters of artistic consideration? Why not? Lack of a proper education? Elitism? Then, as another example, there's the clearly sanctioned disconnect with non-viewers; those who are turned off by elitist artistic choices and won't go to museums because of the choices which have been made; unmitigated, intentionally becoming exclusionary?

 

Indifference? Indifference in the thought that if they don't want to learn about it and don't want to embrace artistic think, then that's their problem. And because of this exclusionary attitude, many don't feel a need to do anything to help bridge the intellectual divide, compounding this "noninclusionary, intentionally biased, elitist thinking? What's being done by the power structure to include efforts by the other half of the art world, to bring in those who "don't get it?" More elitism?

 

The aforementioned behavior shows the underlying nature of how "noted" art is chosen due to this undemocratic, planar thinking process in which pieces and artists are chosen to the exclusion of those who don't think alike. The undemocratic process, seems to intentionally be ignoring all social facets other than that what is found to be "socially acceptable" by the power elite. This intentionally inflicted exclusionary process highlights elitism at it's finest. And by using this elitism as the crucible in which to judge examples of (esteem) noted "art" and "artists," more unsuspecting will be excluded in the process.

 

Beethoven, Bach, Elvis, Yanni, Coltrane, The Monkees, Fleetwood Mac, Abba, Ventures or Thelonious Monk?

 

The above choices are enough to bring the elitism out of any elitist:)

 

One could take lessons from Diane Arbus's bio and her photographic "Freeks are Us" message.

[daniel_ob]

I think that guy used word ellitism" had intention to use it simbolicaly. Elitism is for people that win lotery and get millions instantly by some chance, so rise nose not knowing anyone anymore. I moved through one of the best Art Academy and never heard such word. People just like to contribute, like me, and do not have time, hours, for corrections and sometimes just use shortcut. Anyway there is no such term in art world. If you get one serious with a such term let him go. I know many people thinking soooo high about themself that I am frightened of theit fall, so better stay away.

[catherineadams]

Dear Roger,

 

Maybe you're back now, so I'll venture answering and prolonging this rather

intense discussion. First, I agree with your art history friends, at least to a

point. I think more emphasis should be placed in art history programs on art,

especially art processes. In my PhD program, there were no requirements, for

instance, which leads to a distance from the physical use of materials. I was

fortunate, however, to major in Art in college, so that gave me some

relationship to the "archeology" of art (man, i haven't used that word since

theoretical coursework!). I was the first to do an art history concentration at

that school, principally because I was extremely poor and couldn't afford art

supplies--so teachers gave me books and a place to crash. In truth, I would

have rather studied both (all capitals), but that's probably why I spend every

minute I can on photography now. Nonetheless, at that school, the art

historian made us work on egg tempera and all sorts of old-school techniques

in our art history methodology courses. She--like your friends--knew that it

was critical for the historian to understand techniques. I'm afraid that most

PhD programs now emphasize critical thought/theory. I'd put that emphasis

on theory and "isms" down to a pedagological failure in art history--the

attempt to render itself a science. That's why I can't see myself teaching in a

department--I've tried, it felt false. I hope your friends are handling more

gracefully than I. Of course, there's hope for the discipline, with critics like

Didi-Huberman (particularly his work on Aby Warburg, which I heard while

attending his lectures in Paris). He wrote "The Invention of Hysteria," which is

about photography. Also, I believe art and art history departments should

work stronger together, be more collaborative. In this vein, I want to teach

both photography and art history together, which I think would be easier (in

terms of what universities expect) from a photography professorship position.

 

As far as the "suburban tastes" goes--well, that's maybe harsh. I've written,

then deleted, several responses/explanations(apologies?), but they seem to

require too much expos頯f myself. Then I realized the simplest: I've come to

see "suburban" as a category, because we discuss it as such within academic

circles. Something to be examined, analyzed, etc. It's interesting that you

bring up the Victorian Alma-Tadema. I enjoyed (and still enjoy) him. In

undergraduate studies, I focused on Victorian art and middle-class aesthetics.

Then, in graduate school, I saw how the discipline dismissed the middle-class

view. Almost in order to protect my own enjoyment, I stopped "studying" the

nineteenth-century. In fact, I took up contemporary art because it isn't (by far)

my favorite era, thus I can be critical (i.e., science). You're right in pointing

him and others out--the love of art is about love, enjoyment, pleasure, no

matter the background. Still, how does Alma Tadema et al. open doors into

another logic or realm of thought? Liechtenstien, I feel, does, at least in the

cross-over between fine art and graphic art. So many other artists have

proceeded to redo (refine) this opening that, maybe, we fail to see it half-a-

century later.

 

Personally, however, my resistance to creating "suburban" art comes from my

experience in a very unimportant, rural gallery (I've not been promoting my

work as much as I should, so this is my sole experience as of yet). In this

gallery, in an artistic community no less, my work (according to the owner)

commands the most conversation. But it doesn't sell that much. Why?

Because, according to the owner, people are looking for work to match their

sofa/etc. In truth, I probably have a lot of pictures that will do that, only I'm not

hanging them. A small story: I was in the gallery that shows Annette

Messager's work (my dissertation is on her oeuvre). A couple is standing

before an installation of torn apart plush animals and photographs. As I'm

looking at this work, I feel everything I've ever lost (or so I believe) through

civilization and (particularly) education. The couple, however, simply say:

Who would hang this in their living room? It was the work of Messager, one of

the most beautiful persons I have ever known and one of the greatest French

artists of our time. Yet they are asking about "living rooms." This also defines

"suburban tastes" for me. I would hang it my living room--in fact, I'd devote my

whole house to it, as Messager does, who sleeps (or did) underneath a new

piece of "Mes Voeux" that was going off to a museum. (Please, look her up,

she's phenomenal. She makes me believe in art.) So, yes, I guess, I'm a bit

hostile to current suburban tastes.

 

Lastly (and forgive me, everyone, for taking too long), about "conversation." In

part, you understood me. It is about audience. Only I'm more concerning with

engaging in a conversation with artists and art history (however vague). For

instance, most of my artwork reflects back on the eighteenth-century, adding a

twist to the standard tropes and (hopefully) engaging with that history. One of

my collage works, "The Fall of Medusa in the Temple of Athena," takes a

typical eighteenth-century trope of "Medusa" (i.e., mythological art). Instead of

portraying the snake-headed beast, however, I show the onslaught of the

rape that makes Athena turn her into a monster, with Athena looking passively

on. Why does redoing the myth matter? Sexual politics, maybe. Or the idea

that it matters how we understand these (dying?) myths. As a woman, I don't

want a new mythology--I want to understand the layers of the ones we know.

 

Roger, does this answer your questions? Whether or not you return to this

point, it means alot to have you ask. I'm far from my friends, too, now

scattering the states for their livelihood. I miss this form of conversation also.

 

 

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Catherine,

 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Please forgive me if I concentrate on a single aspect: it's late, I've only been back from the Pyrenees for a day, and I don't feel I have time to address all of your post.

 

I think the problem lies in the concept of a single conversation. The better the art, the more the conversations. The greatest art engages with the largest number of people: art historians, 'sophisticated' buyers and, yes, suburban tastes. Rarify the conversation and you detract from the essential appeal of the art -- as your own story rather illustrates.

 

Alma-Tadema engages with a rich middle-class taste, especially with his big classical canvases (only the very rich could afford the SPACE for an Alma-Tadema, but the half-rich could afford repros). He also engages with thinkers on many levels: to choose the easiest examples, those who think about inequality, sex (I didn't say they had to be profound thinkers but just look at some of those classical maidens), classicism (Britain as the New Rome, or latterly, pace Supermac, Greece to America's Rome), religion, and indeed lovers of technique: in many ways he was the Ansel Adams of late 19th century painting.

 

How far was this deliberate? How far am I projecting 1965-2005 values onto A-T? (I first became aware of him in about 1965) Does it matter? Does not the conversation transcend the artist's intention, and indeed, is not an intention to create a conversation that is separate from the creation of the work of art an undertaking that is incompatible to some degree with that creation? It's the old 'If you want to send a message, call Western Union'.

 

In the early 70s one of my friends used to paint pictures that he called 'wallpaper' for Heals. I don't know if you know the store but it's a furniture/decor shop for the well-to-do in London. He used to paint three at a time, in different colourways (a marketing term, not fine art) and get GBP 600-700 for the three; $2000 at the then exchange rate, from memory, a good $5,000 to 10,000 in today's money. This funded his 'real' painting. I've always admired him for that.

 

Sure, there's a lot of suburban garbage, and the 19th (and early 20th) century middle class funded a lot of it, usually in repro: often, nostalgia for utopias that never existed. I can remember the paintings but not the painters: as I say, it's late, but if you get the chance, go to Birmingham City Art Gallery where there's a lot of late 19th century suburban art, mostly rubbish, some great.

 

There's a lot to be said for Sturgeon's Law, too: 90 per cent of ANYTHING is garbage. The Musee Cognac in Paris has some lovely late 18th century paintings, but half of them are attractive (and well-padded) young women with few clothes on: Fragonard and his ilk. Were they bought or commissioned for the artists' command of light and shade? Or because the buyers enjoyed looking at young women with few clothes on? I suspect the latter; but they transcend the latter, or at least, I think they do (I'm a man too...)

 

Further food for thought. Looking forward to your reply.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger