The Art Education Problem

ART Renewal Center ^ | FR Post 3-7-03 | Don Gray

[vannrox]

If we are looking today for a general level of art of serious purpose, art with profound content supported by significant aesthetics, we will not find it. Contemporary art has failed.

If we are satisfied with superficial, artificial art that manipulates aesthetics for empty abstract, decorative effects, then we truly live in a "golden" artistic age ... for this kind of art is everywhere.

The degree of present-day artistic collapse, compared to the height of past artistic achievement, can be seen in the velocity and extent of precipitous decline during the 20th Century, increasing since World War II.

In our time, artists mechanically -- and temporarily -- scribe lines on museum walls, spread debris on museum floors (perhaps it is merciful that such works are not preserved for posterity), and make metal video robots that may wonderfully tell us how dehumanized we have become, but offer no suggestions on how to reverse the process.

We lost our connection with principle and enduring greatness in art (and life), when we lost connection with nature and with our own spiritual, poetic, artistic dimension. We lost connection with each other and with ourselves when we were overwhelmed by technology and the forces of societal and personal dehumanization. Our values -- artistic, spiritual, societal -- are in disarray. One aspect of this tragedy is that many don't even realize what happened to us and our art.

We hope for better things, more understanding, insight and integrity from future generations. But, unfortunately, the future continues to be corrupted by the present and recent past.

Young, would-be artists are subjected to the stale, dead, often perverse contemporary art ideas propagated by too many teachers of the day. Too many college and art school professors have lost their own way as artists, have little idea what genuine art is, and mindlessly espouse the distorted values, the fashionable cliches of contemporary art ...

... depersonalized design without character; theoretical, esoteric color and drawing; ritual gesture and mechanical relationships; meaningless formulas devoid of significant connection to the deepest thoughts and feelings of student-artists, unrelated to the meaning of life or to the visual and emotional reality of the world.

Too many art school graduates are ill-equipped to see the "art" in everyday life as did great artists of past centuries. They don't have the knowledge, insight or drawing and painting skills to create art from reality, to significantly translate their experience of life into art.

They have not been taught to dig deeply within themselves, to ask what they really need from art to fulfill themselves as artists and human beings, then use that awareness to excavate the raw material of the world. As far as they know, art is a closed narcissistic circle that does not include other human beings or the world. Art is aesthetic masturbation without communication. Tragically, most young artists don't realize they are clones of limited teaching unless they have an instinctive reaction, a sense that something isn't right even if they can't put it into words. How can most students tell a cliche from a timeless principle? It takes time and effort to earn that understanding. Or, if finally fed up with this educational process, they may react like the outraged college student who threw a wadded drawing in the face of the instructor who, when asked for help in drawing still-life ellipses, replied, "We don't worry about ellipses around here."

How many students give up in the face of non-information, disinformation and sometimes outright hostility from their teachers? A certain college art department could not understand why they had so few students, why their numbers were declining yearly. The answer was clear. The art professors were bitingly critical. Most of us would agree that such an attitude is not teaching, anymore than the passing on of degraded and degrading art fashions. To teach is to support the students, give them solid skills, do everything possible to awaken them to timeless art principles, the miracle of art, fill them with a passion for art they can build on for a lifetime.

There are obviously good art teachers. But the general impression of the college and university art educational system, based on the art produced by both students and faculty (like contemporary art itself) is decay.

Young artists need to be taught organic, vital, biting, powerful, personal drawing and painting. They need to draw and paint rutted cabbages, twisted tree roots, muscled forearms, aged heads, rocks, onions, rotten apples, cow pelvises and a hundred other things, and do it with character and strength. They need this more than they need the slick, clever, unfelt line and shape, the commercial swish and stain of brushwork unrelated to any reality, that are hallmarks of contemporary "draughtsmanship" and painting.

They need to be taught to see, to study an object so intensely they become one with it; the forms, color and character of reality and the world revealed to them. They must be given the aesthetic means to significantly express these timeless truths, each young artist responding in their unique way.

We will remain rootless as artists and art lovers if we thoughtlessly continue trying to build upon the insubstantial aesthetic mannerisms of contemporary art.

We need to rediscover the foundational principles of great art when it was still in touch with life, not to copy past styles, but to learn from genuine artists, be inspired by their example, commit ourselves to the search for styles, forms and subjects expressive of our own time and worthy of our humanity, now and for centuries to come. This is what the great artists of the past did.

The only way to build an artistic bridge to the future is to re-construct our link with the past that was destroyed by the pain, passions and corruptions of the 20th Century. Obviously, artists should do what they feel they must do, but almost anything else will result in a continuation of the present empty aesthetic floundering.

The rediscovery of the world and foundational principles in art involves as daring and revolutionary a search for the very nature of art and life as the Renaissance discovery of the world after a thousand years of medievalism. There is nothing more innovative and difficult that any of us have ever faced. But we need to do it ... for art, for ourselves, for our self-respect, and for future generations of mankind.

[u-89]

I am always kind of amazed at the peristent leftism of the art community. For a segment of society that should prize free expression, they rarely fail to embrace a political philosophy that demands authoritarianism and regulation.

To the left in general they seem to be in denile about the totalitarian aspects of socialism. In some cases it is lack of thought, they fail to think through actions to results, they just focus on good intentions. But more direct to your point one would think that artists by temperment would be libertarians and not socialists. But then some look to government for subsidy as the free market can be harsh on one's dreams and aspirations.

[u-89]

Your response was to my post #6 but look to my post #12 and you will see that we are of similar thought. The politicization of art led to the celebration of the deviant and the highlighting of societal "injustices" and pretty pictures to not convey the message hence harsh and shocking depictions. Of course the overall academic trouncing of standard's has led to technical deficiencies becoming acceptable.

[Betty Jane]

Slightly different perspective. I'm not an artist; I can't draw my way out of a paper bag. But I do know what I like.

My husband's large employer is selling several of its buildings and all of the property inside. This includes the artwork. There are many prints and about 75 original pieces. Prints are $35.00, originals are going for 10% over original buy price in 1998, from $150- $25,000.

I was looking over some of them and picked out 9 prints but don't know any of the original artists. The strange thing is the things that I hate had some very large price tags and I just don't get it. I liked several of the more modestly priced items. Is there any where on the web where you can info about new artists?

[u-89]

Rothko's work was not about technical skill, it is concept. That's the point is whether it's Rothko, Morris Louis, Pollack or any other abstract painter. The general public understands painting in the terms of photo realism i.e. the closer a painting looks like a photograph of a person, a basket of fruit, etc. the "better" the art. This one dimentional understanding leads to disapproval of abstraction. Look at it this way - people travel out of their way to see autumn landscapes but when the same mixing and spilling of color is on a canvas they are offended. Why? because they read the color as something tangible in a landscape - it's trees even though they are marveling at the colors. What is failed to be recognized is the appreciation of color interaction in its own right so when taken out of its natural environment they do not understand what they are seeing or rrealize how they loved it all along.

[vannrox]

If you want to determine the worth of "Fine Art" go to The Art Renewal Center.

Modern Art is another issue all together. I would suggest The Gagosian Gallery. They are famous for selling splatter art on canvis for $3 million.

[vannrox]

Examples of Nazi Art:



You might want to go HERE.

[tangerine]

It is expressive of our times. One has only to look at FR as an art form to see all the same, headline after headline, page after page, one statement after another when all taken as a whole. A different format, but the same.

Compare that to the journalism and discussion one might have heard in public 50 years ago - 200 years ago - 1000. And which the public or private sponsors may have felt honored to pay for too.

[Dianna]

bookmarking

[Sam Cree]

Thanks, although I am not too interested in Nazi art, or propaganda art particularly, was just making a comment on it.

I have been paying some attention recently to the old masters, as well as some 19th century folks that seem pretty good to me, like Eakins, Whistler, Sargent, Turner, etc.

I wonder how many freepers there are who paint, either as amateurs or professionals.

[woofie]

I agree with you...I have a BFA and 30 years in the artworld. Im sure this crowd might throw a few rocks at what I do,but then everyone is an art critic. My father used to rail against "modern Art" and I would remind him that Picasso was older than he was .

[John Felix]

The art world was led down the road of 'anti elitism' hand in hand with the rise of Marist thought. This proletarian approach was engendered back in the late 19th century.
Later in the 20th century, with Marchel Duchamp and the Da Daists, Russian minimalists, and other reductive thinkers, all talent and technicl skill was drained from visual art.

What many are realizing is that there has been a great loss of technical skill in the visual arts. Also a new strain of aesthtic elitism has risen - the very thing it was born to reject.

[u-89]

And Picasso said: "I used to draw like Raphael but it has taken me a whole lifetime to learn to draw like a child."

Are you in commercial or fine arts? I'm a painter myself.

[vannrox]

I am trying to break into painting. Check out my paintings at HERE. There are three pages of paintings. My latest are on the later pages.

[Darksheare]

I know.
I'm just venting about the views of those in power in the art world.
In my area, I'm listed as the 'lone conservative' among my 'peers' in the art world. Those in 'power' sneer at me while those on my level respect my choice of philosophy and redfusal to prostitute my views. They still disagree with me and consider me a step above Belial, but they respect me.
Ironic, in a way.

Wish there was a way to get more conservatives into the art world.
The more of us there are, the harder the usurping of standards will be.

[woofie]

And Picasso said: "I used to draw like Raphael but it has taken me a whole lifetime to learn to draw like a child."

Great quote...

I sent you freep mail

[Yardstick]

There is a body of 20th Century Art that will be long remembered and admired. That of the Commercial Illustrators.

I think you're on to something. I was in the bookstore the other day looking at a big book full of Norman Rockwell paintings, and I was fighting back tears. A lot of his work has a sentimental angle, but that's not what got me... it was the raw power of his technique and his ability to compose, and the fact that he used his talent to create art that is a pure pleasure to behold. You mentioned Maxfield Parish, and it's the same way with him. These guys are almost supernaturally talented, but they serve the fruits of their talent to you on a silver platter for your pleasure. Their paintings seem like a service to the viewer, somehow -- it's the viewer's pleasure that's important -- and I appreciate that. In a way, the nature of being a commercial illustrator harkens back to the days when artists were commisioned to paint or sculpt by wealthy patrons. I think that aspect of hiredness is less likely to lead to the sort of silly narcissism that we see in a lot of modern art. Instead, it leads to images that are unabashedly resonant and beautiful.

[u-89]

I live just outside of New York and most of my artist friends have a dim view of the leftist/PC politicized work in the NY galleries or at the Whitney. They might not all be politically right wingers but they have a high sense of art so they don't groove on the currently silliness that permeates the scene. As a rule I don't get into politics with the art scene people that I don't know well but if the subject comes up it is easier being a libertarian. Just the name republican or conservative sets these people off and they never get past that to listen to what you say. Since I became a libertarian I found it makes discussion with these types more civil even though they disagree.

[Sam Cree]

I also agree in admiring many illustrators.

NC Wyeth, for one, years ago I bought a print of his to hang in my daughter's room, even now I never fail to admire the thing.

And the Tolkien illustrators, Alan Lee and John Howe are fabulously talented, IMO.

[Sam Cree]

My prof, over at the community college, where I am taking some art classes (figure drawing and painting) considers herself to be a libertarian, as I myself do (small L). I kind of see most of our founding fathers that way, too.

But she also loves the Clintons and the Democrats, she was the first person I met that considered libertarianism and socialism to be compatible, though apparently there are many like her. Clearly any philosphy such as libertarianism, which is based on individual freedom, must necessarily be totally opposed to the leftist doctrines, but I guess many cannot see this.

I figure that these people are attracted to the egalitarianism within leftist philosophy, not realizing that it is exactly that which requires it to be so suffocatingly authoritarian.

[u-89]

I figure that these people are attracted to the egalitarianism within leftist philosophy, not realizing that it is exactly that which requires it to be so suffocatingly authoritarian.

That's the way I see it though looking for a free ride can not be discounted either. Some feel art is so important that it should be government subsidized - that is they be guarenteed a living at doing what they like doing and not subjected to market forces. Years back some artist friends of mine and I went to Italy for a while to hang out and look at art. There is something in Rome called the American Academy I had never heard till I stumbled across it there. Basically the government pays artists to live in Rome and do their thing for a full year. My friends thought it was great. I said it would be if a patron of the arts set it up on with his own money but being tax dollar funded I could not support it - they thought I was nuts. All they could see was a free year in Rome.