One may even add dancers,musicians, singers, and story tellers to the
list of artists.
Creating A,E's is not something that can be taught, yet can sensed by
anyone.
mando
On Mar 13, 2010, at 6:23 AM, William Conger wrote:
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
