The only mystery is how Miller draws his conclusions from my comments. Considering American schools only for the sake of convenience there are good curricula for any appoach to artmaking. Miller may not understand that the word curricula has a specific meaning. A curriculum is a prescribed course of study. It involves sequences, topics, graduated levels of specialization and rigor, etc. A curriculum does not enshrine willy-nilly self-expression. Various curricula are vetted by several oversight organizations, not to exclude the administrative structure of the institution housing it.
If one seeks, for instance, a program devoted to traditional realism, it can be found at Yale. Or at Indiana Univ. or at Wshington Univ. But other curricula also exist at those same schools. Then there's a place like the Kendall School of Art and Design that trains students in realist manners. And so on. If one seeks the latest theory-based curricula, the place is Cal Arts. By and large, the state universities and colleges tend to remain somewhat traditional in their art curricula, partly because they must be mindful of transfer credit from community colleges and the like. The MFA program I led at Northwestern was for many years centered on painting and drawing. Now it is centered on different media, theory, and painting has all but vanished. Programs change for various reasons. There are half-truths in Miller's comments. I believe it is true that many art schoool curricula are confused, overly distracted by market forces which are always a part of any educational system. Basically, students want success more than they want rigorous learning and study. Big news? Of course not. Artworld success trumps almost all other modes of success nowadays because it is so visible and seemingly the apotheosis of the individual -- American style. As for prizes, Miller and others should read Plagens' article -- I've mentioned it 3 times. There are many prizes in the visual arts but there are no established, universal norms. I can go on but it's too boring. The rebuttals to Miller are so abundant and so easily verified that it tires me to dwell on..... WC --- Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William has noted that: > > "look at art programs, easily > obtained with some web surfing, will show > extraordinary breadth among competing programs. > Clearly, there's something suited to any student's > interest among the plethora of options today > (unlike, > I may add, the Academic era of art training in the > 18-19C)." > > And that "plethora of options" is exactly how > Modernism was experienced in the > United States with the no-jury societies that sprang > up after the Armory Shows > in New York and Chicago in 1913. > > The key words of this ideology have been 'freedom' > and 'self-expression' . > (with the word 'fascist' freely applied to those who > don't share them) > > The no-jury societies burned out during the twenties > (as Robert Henri noted, > self-expression is a good thing - but why does it > need a society? And who > really wants to go to an unjuried show ? -- even > street fairs today are proud > to be selective) ---- but the ideology found new > life in educational > institutions after the war -- as a benefit not so > much to the viewer as to the > self-expressing practitioners - and, of course, to > the institutions and the > people whom they hired. > > Life was pretty tough for even the leading American > modernists of those > decades. They might get big shows and good reviews > -- but then, as now, > there wasn't much of a market for their work. > Arthur Dove went back to > raising chickens --- 50 years later, he would have > had a university career. > > > And what's puzzling -- is that this only really > happened in the visual arts. > > Grade school art class is all about self expression > -- unlike classes in > music and writing that demand certain standards of > performance. In higher > education, a variety of techniques and accompanying > standards may be offered > -- like options at a buffet table -- but ultimately, > self-expression trumps > them all -- and didn't William once tell us that > there really wasn't any point > to having studio classes in graduate programs ? > (and yet soon, apparently, a > PHD will be offered in studio art) > > Why has this ideology been so dominant only in the > visual arts ? > Why do teachers in music class still demand that > students sing on key and > follow the melody and rhythm ? Why do English > teachers still demand that > students observe rules of grammar, spelling, and > composition? > > And, as Brady has asked - and no one can answer -- > why do we still have > important prizes in all the arts except the visual ? > > It's one of the great mysteries. > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Chances to WIN a Fabulous NYC Vacat > Enter for your chance to WIN in the TotalBeauty.com > Sweepstakes! > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/JKFkuJO6eSc9yTNbyDDDfZroiQfClL > dRnMcEMAM0b1OpWCv63kcgOA/
