I don't know what you've read of Kuspit. He's written many reviews, etc. that are directed to encapsulated issues. Look past those. although they're usually pretty good.
I see him as a champion for serious art that continues in the Kandinsky and modernist thesis of indivudual creative art. His approach can be very annoying to some and highly revealing to others. He's a major critic and writer. He often takes a psychoanalyic approach (trained in the field, plus 2 PhDs) and centers on art as the expression of the unconscious. I can't think of a specific sentence. Go read just one of his chapters re 20C art on www.artnet.com I figured you'd like his approach. It's very "revolutionary" if a 100 yr. old idea can be still revolutionary. I think yes, because the reasons are now stonger than ever. WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
