It's very hard to deal with this skill issue. I'm guessing that all of us here, artists, writers, architects, designers, and so forth, were well trained in skills associated with our endeavors and see them as necessary to our work. What do we say about those who have never been trained in those skills, who purposely reject them, but who have had all the success or achievement we would think required such skills? What do you say to someone who intends to be an artist, or who claims to be an artist, but who also rejects the usual skIlls as necessary? (By saying skills I mean to include the associated knowledge and concepts). Since Duchamp, the artist can be one who simply points or appropriates art. As Duchamp did, as Warhol did, as Koons does, calling oneself an artist is sufficient validity to justify any act or thought as art. This issue has been talked to death, I know, but when it comes to listing the skills, knowledge, concepts that should be central to artists' training, it's impossible to know what to include, what to exclude. In that way, art curricula are groundless, or tepidly traditional as if modernism didn't happen, unlike most other disciplines where certain foundational competencies are essential to higher level achievement.
Maybe art training should simply be a given number of courses without any specific requirements and degrees therefore representing quantified study and not any particular skills, knowledge, concepts. I think this is the case in reality but not recognized by what an art degree supposedly represents -- certain skills, knowledge, abilities, etc., unique to the field and to "artists". In other words, what myth does the art degree sustain and what myth encapsulates the title, artist? Can you imagine a degree in physics, or any other lab science that required no basic calculus? Can you imagine a degree in English that required no reading skills? Can you imagine a degree in philosophy that required no skill in logic? Can you imagine a degree in History that required no chronology of events, salient or not? Why can we imagine a degree in art practice that requires no fundamental skills in basic media and does not rank their value against any possible media, that requires no knowledge of art history, that sets no standards of excellence beyond the whims of individual instructors, that requires no survey of the philosophy of art, that substitutes snippets of arcane art theory (French and Continental) for general liberal arts. Don't you find it curious that the typical advanced art degree student, and MFA grad, can babble a little about French art theory but can't say a word about epistemology, a syllogistic logic, or recite a basic chronology of art history, let alone world history, and hasn't read anything and can't write a coherent sentence --- and has no drawing skills above amateurish doodling? Such people are legion, believe me. There are tens of thousands of MFAs out there who match that profile and some of them are teaching art. More and more PhDs in studio practice are appearing. Is this all bad? I don't know and am actually inclined to say it's not -- as far as art itself is concerned -- because so much wonderful art is being made. But it might be bad for art education. Should art education or training be ahead of the curve, aiming for the next step in art, or with the curve, being fashionable and timely, or behind the curve, being more about tradition and depth? Almost all degree programs aim to be ahead of the curve or at the curve; only the most traditional, usually private vocational programs) aim for the historical model). And trying to do it all results in contradictory curricula that undercut any effort to establish fundamentals and leads to empty degrees ( degrees that confirm nothing essential to the field). Maybe the old Art Students League model is best after all. No set curricula, no administrative assessments, no degrees, just good teaching by established artists, chosen by students, not assigned to them. But no artists from the League would obtain cushy tenure track jobs in today's art academia. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 6:26:06 AM Subject: Re: Physician, heal thyself In a message dated 3/13/10 2:16:47 AM, [email protected] writes: > There is nothing to prove. Look at professional dancers, musicians, > writers if > you can't see it in our field. > I'll buy the dancers and musicians as having learned and professional habits. But Conger said skill sets or talents that are universal to those who claim to be artists and learned and professional habits are not universal. Kate Sullivan
