Concerning the abandonment of form, the following recent article says: - They just need to look at it and know the basic form (i.e., three stems may be used to form a triangle). Once the form is created, anything can be used to fill in the arrangement."
http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20100315_ikebana_with_a_youthful_flair.html On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:34 PM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > I don't think it's the case with design as you suggest. Design is > generally more collaborative than what you mean by art and it certainly > relies on interactive technology. Further, design is aimed more > specifically at products and thus any design curricula needs to include a > lot more societal groups and interests than the solitary artist in the > studio. I think the expanding arenas for artists are fine and aid their > roles as image-makers and critics of culture. Although I detest terms like > "cultural production" I do understand how they help to identify > "post-studio" (the artist out in society and engaged with culture) and more > collaborative art and design identities. I am for an inclusive approach. > > My chief objection to the current directions in art education, and thus > aesthetics, is the increasing abandonment of form -- I mean the visuality of > form and the history of art as an evolution of form and style -- and the > near exclusive concentration on social science as art. This aggrandizes what > is called "situational art or aesthetics" which all but erases any interest > in the personal identity of the artist as one who embodies or objectifies > form as a metaphor or concrete stand-in for human experience. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Frances Kelly <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, April 13, 2010 8:52:21 PM > Subject: RE: What if we took this view > > The recent messages kindly posted by Saul and William are still > being digested by me, but an injected footnote of sorts might be > of interest. It may be relevant to consider the relation between > "art" and "design" in most academic curricula. Many schools and > colleges and universities have entities that they call > collectively "art and design" which usually leans toward the > visual but away from the architectural. If it is true that such > art at least in academia is drifting away from the humanities and > philosophy but more toward the technes and sciences, then it > seems to me that design is drifting away from logic and theory > but more toward craft and skill. My rough scan of design > calendars from several noted institutes and departments of design > clearly indicate this. Early in the previous twentieth century > and up to its last quarter the calendars show there was great > emphasis put on such subjects as history and semiotics and > empiricism and theory, but not so anymore. The emphasis now seems > to be more capitalist and economic and practical. The governments > of western industrial nations have also seemingly quit backing > facilities like patriotic "design councils" for some political > reason unknown to me. My main point is perhaps that art and > design are drifting apart in opposite directions, with goals that > are vague, and that seem to be unsatisfactory. Perhaps the best > thing that is occurring here, if there be one at all, is the > merging and blending of art with science and of design with art, > but then it is not fully clear just what gap these new polemic > dualities might be bridging. > --Frances
