A dismal picture indeed. But your advice to 'go read the experts' leaves one a little puzzled. Which experts? (The only bits of Kuspit I have read, for example, did not impress me. Which of his points in particular do you agree with?)
DA On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 5:40 PM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Indeed I have seen how art schools and programs have > changed. For 40 years I was in the thick of it, not > only through teaching but also as an administrator and > as one deeply involved in art curricula, art faculty > appointments and tenure reviews for several leading > schools, review of art programs, on committees at the > College Art Association, etc. I was punch drunk from > being in the ring for so much time and still keeping > up with my work, a career, etc. > > I was a strong advocate of pluralism in art programs, > I mean championing the co-existence of many traditions > and appraches to art. I was a stong advocate of > getting top artists to teach by trusting that they > would inspire students if they were genuinely > interested in those students and not simply looking to > a shelter job. You can believe that 98% of artists > disqualified themselves within minutes of the first > interveiw by saying they thought it most important > that the job would leave them time for their own work. > That means they weren't interested in a job but only > in the security it offers. If one is an artist, the > time will be found no matter what the job > requires...and every job involving the education of > others requires a selfless commitment. I hired and > kept exceptional, internationally known artists who > are exceptional educators. But....there has been a > coup in art programs. The business artists have taken > over the academy and by that I mean the business of > self-sustaining art theory before practice, career > theory trumping and devaluing practice (the post > studio, deskilling revolution that puts talk above > all. Many of today's "top M.F.A. programs are > dominated by that approach and the more pluralistic > studio centered, media centered artists are being > pushed aside as they age (ageism is a very big fashion > in art programs). Painter, printmakers, sculptors, > drawers, are out, ridiculed and marginalized. I > lament the situation. The interests of my generation > in pluralistic art has proven to be naive. > > Now I believe, without intentionally being extremist, > the the new M.F.A. grad is almost completely > uneducated and unprepared and unexamined and > unqualified by anything except equally poor teachers > and artworldy people who have nothing but business in > mind. NO other graduate level program of study has so > little in the way of evaluation or basic standards as > the M.F.A. By the ordinary standards of other grad > fields, advanced art study is a bogus field of study. > > It is a worthless degree except it IS the passport to > the artworld. People who can't draw a square box are > teaching undergraduate drawing ; people who don't > paint at all, teach undergraduate painting; people who > are uneducated in art history teach art criticism; > people who look to cultural theory for "new ideas" > assume that the corpse of culture will birth new life. > The student victims are encouraged by people who > can't do and don't know but easily dazzle. > Authoritative talk by a commercially successful person > can do that. That's why dealers and collectors are > "visiting critics" at art schools. That's why the > art fairs have replaced the exhibition hall, the > studio, the quiet gallery. > > I've been close to many graduate programs in all > fields and I can say with confidence that ALL of them > excepting the art M.F.A. have rigorous standards > requiring basic knowledge in their respective and > allied fields. Empty artists make empty art and both > are easily manipulated by those who prefer art not to > have content that might provoke serious thinking. An > empty container can hold any poison. > > The very few art programs that still require some > performative evidence of knowledge and skills are > generally those that are stuck in narrow aesthetic > views, pandering to rigid, anti-creative outlooks. > They are at the opposite end of the more plentiful > M.F.A. programs and nearly as bad in not educating > creative artists. > > I believe the ugliness of today's M.F.A. programs is > most evident in their unity with the degrading > totalitarian-type material culture ethos that has > enabled nearly anarchistic global-corporate > exploitation, answerable to no government or national > interest, an insane flip of truly democratic > capitalism (see author Anita Klein). See who buys > that art...the moguls of anarchistic free-market > exploitation and the economic repression of the > majority of people. > > The reidentification of art as the commonplace, > glorified by the context of high art, the "white cube" > and its select curatorial Papal Guard simply > facilitates and glorifies the aims of this new > economy: lawless, totalitarian, inhumane, anti > spiritual and deadly to art. It prefers a shallow, > fun-centered art, something to distract people from > the evils that are being heaped on them. Great art is > not about fun and games as such but is a transparent > expression of the human struggle for individual and > spiritual freedom. It can be scary and exhilarating > at the same time: sublime. What serious artist would > want less? For a far better analysis of the situation > see D. Kuspit (The End of Art or his new book, The > Critical History of 20C Art, published as Vol. 23, no. > 1 and 2 of the Journal, Art Criticism, also published > on www.artnet.com > > So go read the experts. > > I am deeply committed to this modernist view of the > autonomous artist-creator. I don't accept the notion > of the artist as a pawn of culture (of visual culture) > except superficially (all people exist in a time and > its symbols). Kandinsky was among my first > artist-heros, and still is. > > I do think the spiritual context of high art exists on > the margins, and is more and more the interest of > young, independent, truly creative artists. It may > stay there, safely, for the sake of the future. > > That's the central reason, beyond arguing with you and > others as brain-play, I'm here. Aesthetics is alive. > It does point to something crucial in our human > identity. It does need to be reinvented generation by > generation. It is a spiritual endeavor. > > WC > \ > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
