Mmmm. Well, at a quick glance (yes I know, you'll tell me he merits more than that) he strikes me as rather in the art journalism mode and not strictly into developing a full-blooded art theory - though I can see the unconscious is very much part of this thinking. I note - with approval - that he doesn't seem to be anti the art museum (which it seems rather a la mode to be at the moment).
I remember I read some of the 'End of Art' partly I think because he had something to say about Malraux (!) though I cannot now remember what. (Yes this is all rather vague I admit). I shall pay him a little more attention when I have the time. In the meantime, your description of the art education scene remains very grim! DA On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:01 PM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
