first, i am not insulting anyone on the list. i stated that the text WAS NOT
written for a 5th. grade class (so why treat it like it was). i'm guessing that
Rob (and everyone else on the list) understood quite well what was being said
in the initial post - perhaps a bit wordy for the taste of some, but oh well.
the point is why discourage posts such as this by reacting to the language as
if it may be meaningless. besides, meaning is determined by context. it's not
internal to the text (or art). if the text is meaningless it's because WE have
decided it. i'm simply saying that I vote for trying to find meaning rather
than dismissal.
secondly, Rob's example of medical knowledge being no good to fix a car is very
silly. we're not talking about two different realms of activity here. We ARE
talking about art theory and art practice which have always gone together.
Simply, all that theory is is talk/text about art - simply, discussing meaning.
That's it. People have done it by grunting others with academics. If we don't
want descriptive and interpretive language (theory) then what's the point of
this list. let's just post pictures.
finally, the bit that Rob wrote that art is only defensible if it does things
that can't be done in any other way - i don't agree with that reductionist
attitude toward art. too modernist for me. I also, find it interesting that Rob
equates the management class with theory. I am in agreement to some degree
here. the art world does reflect the divisions of labor found in capitalism.
the rise of conceptual art and the activities of postmodern artists like Art
and Language can be looked at as rising up out of the information economy and
the patrons that produced just as modernism grew out of industrial capitalism.
So we have managers (critics, curators, patrons and other art professionals)
and artists (labor). i am not satisfied with this division of labor which is
why i want to teach my students theory AND practice. many art students are like
construction workers who suddenly find themselves in architecture school and
then figure out they don't give a damn
about theory because they assume that you can build something that will stand
without it (btw - this is a bad analogy - this is something a construction
worker would never do - build without a plan). in fact, all the students that
I've ever had already have a coherent theory of art when they get in my class.
The theory usually goes something like this, "I like to make art. I work with
material. I don't need my intellect to do this. I know what's good because what
I like is good." theory is always essential - it's who is in control of it and
who it serves that matters. but it certainly does not need to be the domain of
management - by not teaching it I would be effectively saying that theory
(outside what you already know) is not for you it's only for the people who
live on the other side of town. and it should also be said that theory is not
exclusively working for the management class - there's tons of liberation
theory out there that tries to create a
language of empowerment for artists. this causes constant friction between
teachers (workers) and administrations (bosses) in schools. there's tons of
theory that questions the very construct of power that it so often gets
associated with.
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
