You have my sympathy. I can't imagine all those people getting along, each specialty having a professional and political agenda. The applied arts people, design, illustration, interior designers, might have some mission and goals in common but generally fine arts people are very elitist and are in competition with the art historians to see who can keep the most distance from one another. Personally, I always enjoyed art historian colleagues, especially when they have really good ideas. Trouble is, many artists are ignorant of art history and current scholarship and thus try to downplay its importance. And too frequently the applied artists aren't interested in scholarship of any kind. Yet with all the cross disciplinary research going on now, maybe you are putting some of those different people together in developing courses, etc. I once spent a whole year with some colleagues across the arts and Humanities disciplines developing a inter-program. We spent three months of meetings just trying to agree what "color" means. Poets, theater folk, artists, musicians, historians and lit people have widely differing definitions related to the peculiar cultures they represented. It took two years, one year full time, to create the program.
WC --- On Sat, 9/13/08, kathleen desmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: kathleen desmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: It's Hirst and Dickinson > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008, 7:30 PM > Yep! You pegged me. I am an art historian and an > aesthetician only > as supports thinking about art and its vague meanings. You > make > interesting points. I am completely involved in writing, > editing, > grading and teaching and in strategic plans for our > department of art > and design, at the moment, where I am reminded about how > artists and > illustrators, graphic designers, interior designers, art > educators > and art historians (but not philosophers) think. I hope to > > contribute to the discussions when I can. Thanks. > > kkd > > >That sounds like standard art history, suited more to a > syllabi than > >to reality. the distinction between modern and post > modern has > >never been defined for the arts generally, except > artificially. > >It's hard to find where the line is crossed. Is it > when artists > >began a new examination of irony, or with appropriation > and > >restatements of modernist imagery; Duchamp? How does > one separate > >Johns from any of that? Contemporary artists are > those who are > >"contributing to curtrent global ideas and > issues"? That's very > >vague. One of the issues may be the continuing > relevance of > >modernist impulses beginning with Kandinsky. After > all, ideas don't > >die but just go astray for a while, always finding > their way back to > >the path, and hailed as newcomers. I'll need a > better definition of > >contemporary than what you offer. Otherwise, it makes > most sense to > >say all living and working artists are contemporary, > just like > >today, this very day, is contemporary. > > > >A relevant issue? See my commentary in the little > journal Prompt, > >to be published next month. I look at Trotsky and > Breton's > >manefesto "Toward a New Revoloutionary Art and > find it very relevant > >today. > > > >The linear or progress notions of art history: modern, > post modern, > >contemporary seem irrelevant to me. > > > >Anyway, I am happy you are joining in the discussions. > Let's get to it. > > > >WC > > > > > > > > > >--- On Sat, 9/13/08, kathleen desmond > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> From: kathleen desmond > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: Re: It's Hirst and Dickinson > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008, 2:20 PM > >> I was going to comment on Chuck Close not being a > >> contemporary > >> artist, either, actually, even though I continue > to admire > >> and > >> appreciate the work of both Johns and Close. > Since we are > >> no longer > >> in a modern era, but a postmodern one, I guess > that's > >> what I use as > >> the "dividing line." Jasper Johns > certainly > >> contributed to the > >> contemporary avant-garde of the 1950s and 60s > along with > > > John Cage, > > > Merce Cunningham and Robert Rauschenberg and > moved to Pop > > > Art making > > > the way for the postmodern art of Damien Hirst > and other > > > Young > > > British Artists, as well as the array of global > artists > >> involved in > >> Intermedia, Installation and multimedia. I think > of > >> contemporary > >> artists as those who are contributing to current > global > >> issues and > >> ideas. I don't know about presumptions of > confronting > >> relevant > >> issues. What relevant issues? > >> > >> kkd > >> > >> >I wonder why you don't consider Jasper > Johns a > >> contemporary artist. > >> >Where, exactly, is the dividing line between, > say. > >> modern, and > >> >contemporary? Johns is still making work and > we may > >> presume he is > >> >still confronting relevant issues. Is a > contemporary > >> artist one > >> >whose work is not yet widely influential? > >> > > >> >WC > >> > > >> > > >> >--- On Sat, 9/13/08, kathleen desmond > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> From: kathleen desmond > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> Subject: It's Hirst and Dickinson > >> >> To: [email protected] > >> >> Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008, > 1:33 PM > >> >> I couldn't help notice the > inaccurate > >> spelling of the > >> >> names Damien > >> >> Hirst and Emily Dickinson, the > inaccuracy of > >> calling Jasper > >> >> Johns a > >> >> contemporary artist, and the lack of > context in > >> using these > >> >> artists > >> >> for comparison. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >To join William in reading between > the lines > >> of the > > > >> Sendak interview -- we > >> >> >might notice that the names he > places into > >> the iconic > >> >> artist club are all
