Artists Who Don't Learn Their Art History Are Doomed to Repeat It
One of the possibly unforseen consequences of the astronomical and seemingly limitless increases in the cost of a college education in this country is that students are beginning to act like the consumers that institutions of higher learning are treating them as. This may be partially due to the trickle down from continuing education programs, where "students" are generally adults who've already been working as professionals in their fields but need to brush up or branch out (i.e., parents of the college students), but I think it's also due to the growing sophistication of the American consumer culture. Either way, college students are demanding much more for their money, especially with regards to textbooks and other expensive "learning tools." Feedback to the publishers and suppliers of such materials (disclaimer: which I'm privvy to on a regular basis) is increasingly demanding, with more and more students making crystal clear what they expect for their money.
I can't help but feel that this has contributed to the pending changes in art history textbooks many publishers are implementing or considering. Alexandra Peers offers the following overview in ArtNews:
Stay with me here...
When faced with criticism about how inaccessible contemporary art can be, I often argue that fine art is parallel to science: it's a highly complicated discipline that demands a certain investment to understand. I argue that whereas the average art viewer feels qualified to dismiss work that seems too heady as worthless because they don't understand the vocabulary or subtlties of it, that same viewer would most likely accept that they can't understand the details of quantum physics or neurobiology and not feel that makes those disciplines "elitist." Further, I argue that many of the best artists are just as brilliant, if not more so, than our top scientists...that they research their explorations so thoroughly they're THE expert in the field.
Based on that opinion, however, I can't accept that artists can do without learning the fundamentals of art history any more than I can the notion that a general internist can do without learning the fundamentals of anatomy. In fact, I think that's a very useful parallel for how to move forward in teaching art history in this age where (and rightly so) what's taught needs to expand beyond the traditional dead-white-man-focused canon.
There's a film or TV show (can't recall right now) where a med student is frustrated because he "just doesn't get" anatomy. He's an analytical sort and there's no rhyme or reason that he can use to grasp what the concepts are. His mentor tells him he's going about it all wrong: anatomy is not a conceptual subject...it's a matter of memorization. Passing anatomy class takes a mindnumbing degree of repetition and regurgitation, but it's a very valuable tool. To be a doctor, one simply must memorize the parts of the body and their categories...it's an essential vocabulary.
The Western canon (like other canons) is simply that, as well: a vocabulary. It's something one learns, tucks under one's belt, and then moves on. But it serves as a tool for communicating to others...the whole notion behind visual art in the first place. Art students who don't learn these vocabularies are less likely to be able to speak the languages necessary to 1) advance the dialog or 2) demonstrate that what they're offering hadn't already been served up.
Now, I don't think the revisions in the textbooks being discussed evidence any particular disagreement with that position, but I can see signs already that younger artists are leaning away from the memorization of the canons and using politics as an excuse when the real reason is how overwhelming it has become the way it's taught. I can't believe that they can't appreciate the achievements of the artists who came before them or how a good grounding in their vocabularies will serve their own art. (Just because artist X offends one's contemporary worldview politically, doesn't mean his/her innovation isn't a good trick to keep in one's bag.) What's needed is a new way to teach the canon (more like anatomy is taught), not an abandonment of it.
Oh, I've heard the argument that all that "stuff" is more stiffling than helpful (I've never felt that's anything more than an excuse for a lack of time or attention, but...), but the real danger here is not that artists will be overburdened with ideas and images while they're in college, but rather that at some point in the not-too-distant future some young artist is going to pat him/herself on the back for the astonishing "leap forward" they've made by placing a store-bought urinal on a pedestal.
Consider this a painted bulls-eye on my forehead...
I can't help but feel that this has contributed to the pending changes in art history textbooks many publishers are implementing or considering. Alexandra Peers offers the following overview in ArtNews:
College art-history textbooks are undergoing an extreme makeover. Publishers and editors, stung by criticism that they have lost touch with their young readership and driven by market forces that may have little to do with fresh artistic scholarship, are literally rewriting art history—more often and more aggressively than ever before.Of course this reflects a philosophical tussle as well as a consumer-culture one (i.e., boiled down neatly in the article as a question of "Is 'contextual analysis' the new 'deconstructivism'?"), and the article goes on to critique the leading textbooks and outline the debate (which I hope to address in another post), but the following caught my eye:
Recent revisions of major textbooks as well as those still in the works give greater historical significance to a long list of subjects from Islamic sculpture to pre-Columbian art to photography to video. And forget art for art’s sake: the editors of the twelfth edition of Gardner’s Art Through the Ages, a 1,179-page tome that came out last year, said that they sought to include the intended purpose of every work of art featured, the physical environment for which it was made, its historical context, and even the patron who commissioned it.
To consider these problems, the College Art Association (CAA) is about to begin an assessment of as many as 40 or more textbooks. In a break with tradition, some will be reviewed by a student as well as by a scholar. The project, which will be announced this month at the group’s conference in Boston, is already creating a buzz and is likely to raise eyebrows—and hackles. [emphasis mine]I find this a bit alarming actually. I realize that student feedback is sought when developing textbooks of various disciplines (especially with an eye toward page layout, organization, writing style, etc.), and perhaps that's the limit of what's being proposed for review here, but the way this was written, it suggests to me that because students are demanding more value for their money (and let's face, textbooks are expensive), that is being misinterpreted/misaddressed as if students already know what they should taught.
Today, professors say, Art History 101 is a popular class, filled with students, mostly female, who think that newer media, outsider art, and their own cultures are underrepresented in their texts. These students tend to know less about history and classical mythology than the students of Janson’s era, and they are telling their professors that they feel completely overwhelmed by the amount of material they have to memorize.I suspect I'll get myself into trouble with this, but I offer it sincerely: the canon is not as irrelevant or arbitrarily valuable as this suggests. Don't get me wrong...I'm not underestimating students (they have every right to tailor their education to their personal needs and goals...that's why schools have electives), it's just that I think the primary objection by students ("too many places, titles, subjects, and dates") is being misunderstood by both students and instructors.
“The standard textbooks do not begin to address our needs,” says [College Art Association president Larry Silver]. Despite the reprintings and the minor changes to the canon, “the art-history survey text has remained virtually unchanged for half a century or more. In the meantime, students who take art history have become increasingly diverse—with interests more engaged with gender or social issues than a generation ago—and they have wider backgrounds.” At Penn, the art-history survey class has been reworked to include not only painting and sculpture but prints, maps, photography, and cinema, “to highlight the rise of a public sphere of visual culture, culminating with TV and the Internet,” Silver says.
Some schools, such as Columbia and Wesleyan, have thrown out art-history textbooks altogether. Other schools still use them, although they find them seriously lacking. “Over the past 12 years, we have worked with, and been dissatisfied with, almost all of the major survey texts—we flood our students with too many places, titles, subjects, and dates,” says [David Levine, of Southern Connecticut State University].
Stay with me here...
When faced with criticism about how inaccessible contemporary art can be, I often argue that fine art is parallel to science: it's a highly complicated discipline that demands a certain investment to understand. I argue that whereas the average art viewer feels qualified to dismiss work that seems too heady as worthless because they don't understand the vocabulary or subtlties of it, that same viewer would most likely accept that they can't understand the details of quantum physics or neurobiology and not feel that makes those disciplines "elitist." Further, I argue that many of the best artists are just as brilliant, if not more so, than our top scientists...that they research their explorations so thoroughly they're THE expert in the field.
Based on that opinion, however, I can't accept that artists can do without learning the fundamentals of art history any more than I can the notion that a general internist can do without learning the fundamentals of anatomy. In fact, I think that's a very useful parallel for how to move forward in teaching art history in this age where (and rightly so) what's taught needs to expand beyond the traditional dead-white-man-focused canon.
There's a film or TV show (can't recall right now) where a med student is frustrated because he "just doesn't get" anatomy. He's an analytical sort and there's no rhyme or reason that he can use to grasp what the concepts are. His mentor tells him he's going about it all wrong: anatomy is not a conceptual subject...it's a matter of memorization. Passing anatomy class takes a mindnumbing degree of repetition and regurgitation, but it's a very valuable tool. To be a doctor, one simply must memorize the parts of the body and their categories...it's an essential vocabulary.
The Western canon (like other canons) is simply that, as well: a vocabulary. It's something one learns, tucks under one's belt, and then moves on. But it serves as a tool for communicating to others...the whole notion behind visual art in the first place. Art students who don't learn these vocabularies are less likely to be able to speak the languages necessary to 1) advance the dialog or 2) demonstrate that what they're offering hadn't already been served up.
Now, I don't think the revisions in the textbooks being discussed evidence any particular disagreement with that position, but I can see signs already that younger artists are leaning away from the memorization of the canons and using politics as an excuse when the real reason is how overwhelming it has become the way it's taught. I can't believe that they can't appreciate the achievements of the artists who came before them or how a good grounding in their vocabularies will serve their own art. (Just because artist X offends one's contemporary worldview politically, doesn't mean his/her innovation isn't a good trick to keep in one's bag.) What's needed is a new way to teach the canon (more like anatomy is taught), not an abandonment of it.
Oh, I've heard the argument that all that "stuff" is more stiffling than helpful (I've never felt that's anything more than an excuse for a lack of time or attention, but...), but the real danger here is not that artists will be overburdened with ideas and images while they're in college, but rather that at some point in the not-too-distant future some young artist is going to pat him/herself on the back for the astonishing "leap forward" they've made by placing a store-bought urinal on a pedestal.
Consider this a painted bulls-eye on my forehead...
posted by Edward_ at
9:12 PM
31 Comments:
What I'm waiting for is being able to get Janson's as an audio book for my iPod (w/ pictures, of course).
I'd just make two points Ed.
1) It would certainly make sense for AH101 to be taught like Anatomy if all those heading off to AH101 were pre-artist and angling for MFAs which would be required for them to "practise" their art. However, AH101 is also filled with people trying to meet some type of Liberal Arts requirement the business school (for instance) has put in place. In fact, I'd say that many more people (at least in places like the big state universities) are there for just that reason, or to, I don't know, meet chicks ;) For them, all that language might not be too useful, but the art world would benefit more if you get them interested, perhaps you'll move them into other AH classes that aren't needed for credit.
2) It's been awhile since I went to college but I know that one thing probably has not changed, the gradual lessening of actual professors teaching undergrad courses. I did marginally as an undergrad because much of the testing etc. was based on the book, a book that was typically too darn boring to read. I liked attending class, which served me well as a grad student where the courses were taught by professors, most of whom had to be held at gunpoint to decide on a book (unless they'd written it). Skip class as a grad student and you miss 85% of what was on the test. Skip it as an undergrad and you miss maybe 30%...IMHO. So. for undergrads, the book better be darn good and interesting, because it's doing much of the teaching.
One last thing. When you talk to people about art do you really compare it to science? I mean, you may be right, but it doesn't sound like a lot of fun ;)
Consider this a painted bulls-eye on my forehead...
Not at all, your totally right. There are already way too many young artists placing store-bought urinals on pedestals. I've never understood the "creativity through ignorance" argument -- seems like an advocation for closing one's eyes and hoping to come up with something brilliant. Sometimes artists get lucky, but most of the time not.
On the other hand, educated art is often mistaken for good art.
It would certainly make sense for AH101 to be taught like Anatomy if all those heading off to AH101 were pre-artist and angling for MFAs which would be required for them to "practise" their art.
Sorry, Crionna, but I don't think those taking the course for an easy A should be given priority here. The artists in the class, and their needs, should. Perhaps universities can/should offer Art History in various leveled tracks. I do see the value you describe for non-Artists taking the courses.
One last thing. When you talk to people about art do you really compare it to science? I mean, you may be right, but it doesn't sound like a lot of fun ;)
Only within the limited context of why it's not some conspiracy against the general public that they don't immediately "get" what the artist is saying. If they don't throw up that excuse for not taking art seriously, I leave the science parallel out.
I have to say that I have more than my share of problems with the academic model. My undergrad and grad work in studio were frustrating in many ways. Art history was a huge requirement a grad degree in studio takes you 25% of the way to a grad degree in art history credit wise.
However I would not trade those art history credits for anything hard as it was to write all the papers (I went to art school for a reason and writing papers was not one of them)
Art through the ages was the text for my first survey and I still have my copy and I still refer to it in my studio. The quotes you pulled out make it sound to me like students are expecting too much from a survey class. There will plenty of time in there academic careers to delve deeply into particular areas. My uncle always said ‘college is where you go to learn about what you want to learn about’ you’ve got the rest of your life to follow up….
I think you are right on about needing to know your background material. Another great example of this is the law. Lawyers must memorize case after case and be able to quote precedent. It is a discipline.
I understand that memorization is a bore and at the higher levels learning the language of ‘artspeak’ can be an exercise in frustration if you aren’t a pure conceptualist. My students in intro to sculpture when I was a grad assistant used to complain about critique and having to express their ideas in an art historical framework but if you don’t know the language even if you don’t think it applies to you then you won’t be able to participate in the conversation.
To crionna: I have agree that profs can be a problem. Many times the subject seems boring because the teacher is boring in delivery. One the problems with my grad program (and the current academic model) is that grad teaching assistants are given NO training on how to teach, they just throw you in there.
Great post Edward. Students belong in the seats with their minds open, not designing and helping to create the textbooks.
I am already flumoxed by the lack of perspective of young artists and curators who think that putting something on canvas besides oil is a radical departure. (I have read this more than once lately)
It does raise the possibility that 'youth' are depressed by what is expected of them in art now. Modernism was so f*ing reductionist that you might be lead to believe that history is over and we are just mopping up at this point. It is a calculated response to the over-academicizing of the field to scoff at history. I view it as the pendulum swinging by again. I think the reality is that it is a mask and not the truth.
I am reminded of students in high school asking why history should be studied, insisting that it is not 'relevant.' (This would be 30 years ago, by the way) Turns out you study history so you don't sound like an ignoramus amongst your peers (that would be a minimum requirement)
I used to complain about the hundreds of slides that were flashed before my eyes in a dark lecture room without explanation. I now see that as a critical part of my education, which I supplemented with hours of poring over old art mags in the library.
Even 25 years ago, my modern art history course (taught by the inestimable TJ Clarke) did not make it into the 20th century. A student had to fill in the rest himself, with the occasional help of a studio teacher with home made slides. Real contemporary art history is word of mouth, the actors are still alive and making it, and sometimes teaching it. It definitely isn't ready for prime time
Dear Edward,
I think most of these arguments are advanced to further divide the so-called "outsider" artists from the insider (MFA) artists - a divide that perpetrates a myth that suggests that art-educated artists produce better art than non-art educated artists. I do not believe that art is a secret language that one "reads" - this concept of art just opens the door for art priests to decipher and translate for the masses the coded "messages" that are supposedly above the heads of the uneducated. I think art is an experience that is beyond words that transcends every human language. Any attempt to reduce art to words that can be "read" is an attempt to place words above art. My definition of art allows everyone to appreciate the art they enjoy at a level that has deep personal meaning to them. One "lanuage" of art is not superior to another. This is a false divide that has been used to grossly marginalize uneducated minority artists in the West. I go for the passion I feel when viewing and experiening art - not the language I "read" on the canvass or in the photograph.
James
don't think those taking the course for an easy A should be given priority here.
No one I knew went into Art History thinking it was an easy A. Well, some may have, but they dropped pretty quick.
I'm actually surprised at your stance. For someone who seems very interested in having the general populace understand a bit more about art, the better to get them interested in funding it at schools and museums, you sure seem to want to make it difficult for schools to keep people in the classes ;)
Getting back to your science comparison though, I'd have to disagree. I think most people see artists (fine artists, musicians, architects, designers etc.) as "talented" and sceintists as "learned". What I mean is that most people see artists as graced by God with their "talent" while scientists simply studied a whole lot more. To me, a good surgeon is really no different than a good carpenter. Even the meaning of the degrees is different to me. Artists get an MFA because they have visions they need to put on canvas or stone and need to perfect the techniques for doing that. Their "talent" is less the technique, although that's part of it, but more the vision. They can drop out at any time and still become known as great. Surgeons on the other hand get an MD for the express purpose of learning techniques and proving to a group of professionals that they can perform them adequately. They can drop out at anytime and become known as, well, med school drop outs.
Plus, the average art viewer (heck, hopefully all art viewers) sees art as very personal i.e. good or bad to them personally and therefore, the talk around trying to make bad art seem good as a buncha hooey. They see art as something that is to be enjoyed. Few people I know want it to be work. We get enough of that in everyday life.
Having said that, I have learned to respect the technique required to make some art that I would normally identify as bad, i.e. that urinal on the stand wasn't bought at Home Depot it was actually made out of toilet paper (an impressive feat) which is meant to show that even that which we use to dispose of waste is waste itself, or marshmallows which is meant to show that we humans can destroy even something as wonderful as a marshmallow, but I still won't like the art. Would that understanding make you happy and therefore respect my right to call that piece bad?
Should students control the content of text books? No. Should they be exposed to a wider array of art including outsider art, non-Western art, etc? Yes. Should they learn the basics of Western art history much as they've always done? Yes. Are these objectives incompatible? I don't think they are. I suspect the the 50-year-old behemoths will be improved by being broadened and revised. And are students annoying uppity people with strong opinions that are often based on very little experience? Yes. But I don't think keeping Janson and Gardner unrevised is going to make them more mature more quickly. I work for a college textbook publisher, and it's perfectly true, publishers cater to the students (although it's indirect, I have to point out, because all the input comes through professors). I've seen that students want better written, more colorful, more visual with more pictures, and more culturally inclusive books. What's wrong with that? Edward, you sound a little like Edward Bennett harumphing about standards.
In your post a while back about how younger artits see moderism versus older artist, I believe you praised the innocence of the younger artists who could take moderism as a given without nursing a grudge--and as a result, get much more out of it. I think the new texts are likely to "teach the fundamentals" but also broaden students' outlooks.
When faced with criticism about how inaccessible contemporary art can be, I often argue that fine art is parallel to science: it's a highly complicated discipline that demands a certain investment to understand.
Ed, I agree w/ you that the science analogy is useful in addressing the "I know what I like" crowd's frequent dismissal of contemporary art, but in addition to Crionna's objection (which you responded to), I think there's another potential problem w/ the way that analogy is often understood. One of the big differences between the progression of science and that of art is that the paradigms of science replace (and correct) each other as time goes on (as Einstein's theories about the workings of the physical universe replaced and corrected Newton's, etc.) The progression of art history is an ongoing conversation, and it's good to be familiar with it, but it would be a mistake to think that each movement is an improvement over the preceeding one. I know you were not suggesting that of course, but one of the dangers of equating science w/ art is that it can encourage the impression that contemporary art is some how more advanced than art of the past. It's useful to know the progression of ideas from the Renaissance to the 20th (and early 21st) century, but I doubt we'd consider Pollock's work an improvement over Raphael's.
I'd say that many more people (at least in places like the big state universities) are there for just that reason, or to, I don't know, meet chicks ;)
Crionna, it's easier to meet chicks in a studio class :)
Crionna said: They see art as something that is to be enjoyed. Few people I know want it to be work. We get enough of that in everyday life.
Ugh. Art is capable of so much more.
To be honest, artists learn how to make art by looking at other art. School teaches artists how to talk (and write) about it. This explains why MFA's can sometimes talk brilliantly about art while simultaneously making crappy work, and so-called unschooled 'outsiders' can sometimes make good work but may have difficulty communicating about it.
If you are 'in' art and spend a lot of time with it and thinkng about it your thinking is more 'sophisticated' than a casual participant. That is, ideas which seem fresh to a newcomer will seem not just trite but naive and unexperienced. 'That flower should not be smack in the middle' would be a classic, if extremely basic, example.
Studying art history is a way to compress that experience. It is not a substitute for the experience, but a good first pass to help outsiders and beginners get up to speed. That way we don't have to be making the same basic points over and over for the newbies as they arrive and we can get on with the real work at depth.
The flip side is the creation of a rock solid theory to make for easy teaching and talking which becomes the dogma that oppresses the real innovators. The curse of the urinal,
Tim, TJ Clark, yup. I took the first class he taught at UCLA for my art history requirement as a Physics major and ended up transferring into the art department.
I tend to agree with Ed's opinion but in the long run I'm not sure if it will really matter.
Art is capable of so much more.
Ugh. So I'm told ;)
"I know what I like" crowd's frequent dismissal of contemporary art
Honestly, how often does this happen, outside of when some pundit has a slow news day? And really, how often is your mind actually changed about whether you like the piece, say, enough to shell out some $$ for it, by someone talking about the piece? Is it once per show, once per year, has it ever happened? I'm truly interested.
" . . .by someone talking about the piece? Is it once per show, once per year, has it ever happened? I'm truly interested."
I think Ed could address that point from more experience, but I have noticed, I have even been directly asked twice, people want a 'story' to go with the work. It is an important aspect of the sale of a work, almost always. The collector wants to have something 'informed' to say about the work as it is shown to friends. The art work is almost like an ice breaker in that way. It carries a conversation along with it into the room, the more sophisticated the better.
Ugh. So I'm told ;)
Meo-o-o-o-o-ow!! Spffftz. Spffftz.
lol!
you know, repeating art history doesn't sound all that bad. Lots of interesting work there.
How often is contemporary art dismissed through lack of education, IMO?
Hmmm...how many On Kawara paintings are there?
Art is capable of so much more.
If it wasn't obvious, I agree. This thread really has me thinking hard about why I buy art though.
Well, first, we've blank walls to fill. I know that'll elicit another round of "ughs" but I will say that at least we don't buy the pieces to "match" the room, rather we're happy to have the space to put up what we like.
Second, I want things that are beautiful (even if just to me). Bonus points if they help transport me to someplace I've been, or wish to go.
Third, I want things that are timeless. Even if I eventually take it down for a while, I should be able to return to it after many years with the same appreciation.
And Tim, your take is pretty interesting (in fact it confirms a suspicion I've held), it's just not why I purchase art. And I don't think it's why regular Joe's buy art either.
You know, one other point that the art world might consider when dealing with the regular Joe's who "know what they like" is that contemporary art seems to have as a large part of its agenda challenging people's pre-conceived notions, ideas or opinions. And that's great, but y'all should realize that the art world really is full of people who enjoy what they do. I'm sure that it's very challenging to keep a gallery afloat, or rustle up column inches in which to place a critique or find a space willing to show your work, but in the end you're enjoying yourselves. Thats pretty rare though I think. I don't want to wax all poetic about the regular Joes of the world or excuse quick opinion-making but those regular Joes really don't enjoy selling shoes or tarring roofs, and are bombarded by the horrors that are current events daily and sometimes just want a little fun and beauty in their downtime. I for one will excuse them if they don't go looking for something to hang that challenges their worldview each and every time they sit down to dinner with friends.
Just wanted to be part of this conversation and wanted to say something :)
S O M E T H I N G.......
Crionna:"And Tim, your take is pretty interesting (in fact it confirms a suspicion I've held), it's just not why I purchase art. And I don't think it's why regular Joe's buy art either."
I didn't mean that was the only reason people buy art, only that it contributes quite a bit. They, we, just want interesting stuff in our lives. and we want to share our enthusiasm, talk about it. " Yeah, check it out. He just uses sticks and old house paint on canvas on the floor, but look at that thing, it's smokin'."
gitmek istiyorum, bambino...OK?
Fair enough Tim.
...those regular Joes really don't enjoy selling shoes or tarring roofs, and are bombarded by the horrors that are current events daily and sometimes just want a little fun and beauty in their downtime
This thread has shifted somewhat, from a critique of the way art history is taught to a discussion of why people buy art. Tim's point about having a story to help sell a painting (eg.) shows that he's smart about marketing. I'm not sure having that story is the same as the dialogue that goes on in the creation, exhibition and critique of new work (though the one can certainly be used as a tool for the other).
Regarding us regular Joe's, I'm a big fan of both fun and beauty, but after I sell a shoe or tar a roof I usually like to go bowling and have a few beers, not think about art :)
Wowsers...this is a heavy duty topic. My thoughts are way ahead of my fingers, so this comment may seem fractured.
First, a few remarks about the ARTnews article itself. I was bouncing off the walls of the N train after reading it, particularly in response to selections like the below, which Edward also highlighted.
These students tend to know less about history and classical mythology than the students of Janson’s era, and they are telling their professors that they feel completely overwhelmed by the amount of material they have to memorize.
Sad and all too true. And, for the record, I include myself in the under-educated ignoramus camp here. I'm a 28 year-old guy with a floppy stoner mop who doesn't know shit about shit - except maybe evolutionary biology and ethology - yet I'm considered the "learned guy" by many of my colleagues/friends. That ain't good, all things being relative. Alongside the average four-year college graduate in 1890, I don't know jack...and I am accounting for any fantastical Golden Age nostalgia.
Certainly, there is plenty of reason for philosophical/moral hand-wringing when considering the white, patriarchal educational system of the late 19th century, but the schools did a damned good job of imbuing students with a grounding in (Western) empirical knowledge.
Today, as Edward suggested, colleges and universities are markets for consumers. As a result, the grading systems have been "dumbed down," the classrooms expanded and the athletic departments more generously endowed - ooo, sexist that. Folks like myself resent this change and increasingly I feel as though we'll soon produce a generation of self-satisfied morons, the Eloi race of H.G. Wells's novella, "The Time Machine." This education via corporation approach is largely responsible, but it isn't the whole reason.
Tim writes;
Modernism was so f*ing reductionist that you might be lead to believe that history is over and we are just mopping up at this point.
The continuing transition from the modernist, empirical model to a post-modern weave also has a profound affect on what students demand. Gone are the days of authoritative educators and "unbiased" knowledge, replaced with "facilitation" and "construction." All in all, I consider myself a pretty pomo kinda dude, but in the realm of education I trend modernist; the post-modern university too often leads to education as therapy and a surplus of intellectual wimps.
So screw the kids, I say. Let 'em bitch and moan all they want. I spent the better part of my undergraduate years stomping around in combat boots - literally; no photos went unburnt - screaming about the inadequacy of education, but that was part of the deal. I had to learn the Western canon to dismiss it. If we dismiss it off hand as unfortunate, dated material...well, then, we might as well start the group masturbation session and wait for the Morlocks, covered in oil, to emerge at dusk.
PC writes;
I work for a college textbook publisher, and it's perfectly true, publishers cater to the students (although it's indirect, I have to point out, because all the input comes through professors). I've seen that students want better written, more colorful, more visual with more pictures, and more culturally inclusive books. What's wrong with that?
Nothing, I guess, except that the magazine aesthetic you describe lends itself to a cursory, MTV-style reading. I'm not condemning MTV or Hit Parade outright - they have their place - I'm just not so sure they "facilitate" thoughtful learning.
OK...Jesus, Edward. I apologize for this one. I haven't been making as much noise lately, though, so I figure I'm owed an indulgence. ;)
"we might as well start the group masturbation session"
Did I miss the invitation?
Wow. It is such a relief to hear a group of people having such a content rich discussion on such a topic. Everyone's opinions are so balanced and complex, and no one is getting defensive! I am going to tell everyone I know to link here for the good example...thanks everyone!
I hope that when history books are revamped, some women and minorites are thoughtfully added to the mix, including the southern folk artists who certainly helped to shape 20th century art. Perhaps there doesn't need to be an Outsider/Insider distinction anymore.
Also, we might want to discuss the lack of formal training in colleges in addition to Art History.
e
I think to make that change would be devestating. As a student I never realized how amazing art history was until I graduated and had the choice to study it. Now I immerse myself in it! I love it! It's so important. I know if I was back in college and they asked me to review a book and give my opinion, I would have said too much information, too hard to understand, blah blah blah... Now, I would say something totally different! I ran into an artist, a young artist, who said he refuses to study the old artists of our time, refuses to look at other people's work and all this bs... He was 17 needless to say and didn't know what the flip he was talking about but I can just see attitudes like this rising up if we cut out what makes art so amazing!
Thanks for posting this because I had no idea this was going on but it's good to be informed!
please don't take the history - or the art object - out of art history.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home