Peter Plagens wrote: "The big philosophical problem with art prizes Ive no trouble with their economic aspect: Putting extra money in the hands of almost any artist is fine by me is this: They posit by their very existence a hierarchy of artistic merit, then go to great lengths in their public pronouncements to deny that one exists.
My enduring question -- is this just a true for prizes in literature and music? And if not - why not ? That's the mystery that's puzzling me. And BTW -- is a "hierarchy of artistic merit" presented by each of those various curricula that William mentions -- to the extent that looking at a graduate's work, one can say "ah -- this person comes from Cal Arts or I.U. or the Art Institute" --- just as when looking at 15th Italian painters, one could say "ah -- this painter comes from Sienna -- or Florence - or Venice" Or -- are these curricula -- as the Latin root would suggest -- more about a specific path to be followed instead of specific goals to be reached ? ************************************************************** 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. _____________________________________________________________ Need local Internet advertising for your business? Click Here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmRCN9UvJgI4dOUqxb9vtlH4 UYYQ2zqjF1uqdhS2FyLj4pTW/
