Since this listserv covers aesthetics, not social history, it's probably time to abandon "tinkering with the system".
University art schools are no more interested in being studied than any other business enterprise - including every other university department -- except, perhaps, to discover how they might find new markets, increase revenue and profitability etc. They will never be seriously studied until, like every other human institution, they eventually pass into history. (BTW -- this was how Chinese history has always been written-- each dynasty could only be safely examined after it had fallen. The very first Chinese historian dared to examine the dynasty in power, and he was castrated for it) But -- we should be interested in those notions of "Visual literacy" and "formalist credentials". What did Boris and Kuspit and William have in mind ? (BTW -- Kuspit wrote that William had the "formalist credentials" that his contemporary Chicago Imagists are lacking) Can it be tested ? How can it be learned ? Is it necessary for good visual art? --- or --- art of the highest aesthetic value ? Was it just a passing fad of the early 20th Century -- that now, is properly being thrown into the dustbin of history ? ____________________________________________________________ Lower rates for Veterans. Click for VA loan information. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc1lIIDQDURQw2VDn13OWvqnq0 RoLajGLU41b8t2jTj6e3akc/
