- To regard all things and principles of things as inconstant modes or fashions has more and more become the tendency of modern thought.
Walter Pater > Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:50:12 -0700 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: What does the art teacher see ? > To: [email protected] > > I agree that taste --or opinion or belief or > preferences -- does affect our judgments independently > of logic, although even logic can reveal apriori > judgments. > > But I don't agree with Miller's argument that science > and technology disallow beauty. At one point or > another, hasn't everyone exclaimed the beauty of > nature as revealed by science? The Renaissance artists > certainly regarded a scientific view of nature to be > the foundation of their art. They were the first > modern scientists because they studied the "habits of > nature" and were the first after the Greeks to base > their aesthetics and theory on nature. > > What Miller may have in mind when he laments the > effect of technology and popular commercialism on art > is the cultural preference for "things only as good as > they need to be" instead of "being as good as they can > be". > > One of the enduring traditions in all the arts is to > make things as good as they can be, to aim for some > sensibility of perfection. This notion has been under > attack in the arts just as long as it has been > championed in the marketing of mass culture and mass > production. Witness the current fashion for "abject" > and ephemeral art, much in abundance in the hip > galleries and "new art" museums. > > We've come to expect that our $50,000 automobiles > will only be good for, at best, a decade, as long as > they need to be, so why should we still want a $500 > painting to be enduring, aesthetically and physically, > as good as it can be? > > This giving up on the enduringness of art assumes the > conflation of high-low taste and acceptance of "only > as good as it needs to be" expectations. Further, the > new art mandate is to fully separate idea from object, > the object being merely a quick-as-can-be > transmitter/symbol of idea and having no special > aesthetic attributes of its own. Thus, preference for > enduring form and hard won skills is a romaticized > trap, a dishonest and egoist distraction, from the all > important idea, usually ironic, cynical, and abject, > telling us once again that man has made a mess of > things, as if we didn't know that by third grade. > > I think the levelling of art to the ever coarser > descent of mass culture and its addiction to > transient, ever-cheapened > only-as-good-as-it-needs-to-be expectations, however > much that oils the capitalist or socialist economies, > is a bad thing. When art is life without ideals, > there is no art. > > Yes, cultures can and do go bad when a gulf develops > between the enduring ideals that humankind always > claims for itself and the efforts, the desire, to > symbolize them in art. > > I agree that teachers teach taste. Unfortunately, > much of it "sucks" to use the jargon of low > culture/art/aesthetics. > > And I'm not a retro-advocate Luddite. I'm a deeply > conflicted, productive modernist-pomo, > anti-fashionista, romantic -- a ruthless believer in > enduring art and artists who make things as well as > they can be made, conceptually and physically, to > symbolize the human soul. I mean high art! > > I'm sick of the cute little cartoon Calvin's out there > who make low art (while blowing kisses to > Duchamp/Warhol) because, as the cartoon says, there's > "no bottom to bad taste". For me, and Duchamp was a > mildly entertaining freeloading jokester and Warhol > was a fourth rate advertising sketcher who only wanted > to be rich. They both became pop world geniuses when > they realized that what was happening in the > manufacture and marketing of clothing, housewares, > and personalities could also be done as real art. > Imagine either one of them having a conversation with > Velazquez, or any of a thousand others whose art still > stuns onlookers day after day, year after year, > century after century. > > In forty years of teaching, if I didn't teach taste, I > taught nothing. Some of my students didn't agree with > my efforts to teach the taste that rises above mere > personalisms. They wanted to be hot and successful, to > talk more than do, to hope like hell they'd make the > right connections, flatter the right > curators/critics/collectors, live in NYC with a > spouse/partner who had a high paying day job or trust > fund. I've seen 'em come and go, usually fairly fast > for the no-idea, deskilled, post studio talkers > fumbling with "theory" they can't read. Five years to > get noticed by worried peers plus a scatter > installation show or two in basement galleries and > then the long, desperate journey to total career > oblivion. I tried to give them some heavy baggage for > the trip. > > WC > > > --- Chris Miller wrote: > >> Doesn't anyone here agree with me? >> >> Art/literature teachers are always teaching taste - >> or as A.A. puts it: >> "What does the art teacher see? The pupil's >> mistakes" >> >> Even if they deny it - even if it's a taste for >> certain certain theories >> instead of certain kinds of images - and even if all >> they're teaching is a >> tolerance or relaxation rather then a refinement of >> discrimination. >> >> When Brady's professor tells the fourth year >> student: "The hands you painted >> look like flippers" - he teaching a taste for hands >> that look like hands. >> (apparently an important issue here on A-L -- as >> expressed in the recent >> dismay over the hands and feet of Gr|newald's Christ >> - and thank God Gr|newald >> never learned how to do them right!) >> >> And if Brady's professor is concerned that a viewer >> "will not be able to >> discern a hierarchy by responding to the shapes in >> the picture." - he's >> teaching a taste for such a hierarchy - otherwise, >> why raise the issue ? >> >> If Boris is teaching his students to "see all the >> colors or shapes >> etc. on the surface of the model" -- he's teaching >> them that it's >> less important to "think apple or flower" than to >> think "form, color, value" >> Why ? because he's teaching a taste for resemblance >> to nature.(or as Goodman >> might say - he teaching a preferred set of codes) >> >> When Tom is writing about how to allow a novel to >> get written -- doesn't he >> have certain ideas about what would make the >> resulting text attractive to a >> publisher? (i.e. conform to the taste of a current >> market for such things) ? >> Wouldn't the jacket of his book remind us of such >> expertise by relating his >> success as an editor? >> >> Preferences for images is primarily about taste -- >> unless those images are >> expected to relate information about a specific >> question that needs to be
