i agree with Boris, but it's really an ingenious and unique way to
do new art.
But why would any one want to compete with Picasso or matisse or Boris/
william/Brady/or any one else.
mando
On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Boris Shoshensky wrote:
Very true and very sad. By the way Duchamp had good traditional
skills, but
not enough talent to compete with Picasso or Matisse, so he went
down the
urinal drain. The same with Warhol and Koons.
Banal manipulations out of helplessness.
Boris Shoshensky
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Physician, heal thyself
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 06:23:40 -0800 (PST)
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
