2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

De Duve speaks of a difference between "skill" and "talent": "What deserved admiration in the accomplished artist was talent, not craftsmanship. Skill could be acquired, talent could not, since talent was thought of as a gift of nature..." I am, and always have been, skeptical of the idea of "innate talent," or skill that comes as a "gift of nature." I think the idea of "innate talent" is a myth which serves to perpetuate artistic laziness by suggesting that no actual WORK needs to be done to acquire artistic skill. People must work for the skills they acquire, they don't "start out" as being able to draw, paint, sculpt, play the piano, read, do math, etc. Even Michelangelo had to work.

Did anyone besides me feel a sort of hopelessness and sadness on reading this statement: "As industrialisation and...scientific progress...more or less destroyed all craftsmanship, the examples of the past lost their credibility, in art and elsewhere, and the chain of tradition was eventually broken..."? Yes, "specialisation in the visual arts" should mean "the specific training and growth of the faculties of visual perception and imagination," and of "unspoilt creativity," but such specialization should also, to my mind, be about developing a love of craftsmanship, and should draw on the lessons taught by tradition, and not ignore tradition and academic study so severely or utterly. Skill has become something of an anomaly, a charming little event, in today's art world, rather than a normal, usual thing, and I can't fathom why so many artists of today have severed all connection with traditional artistic ideas, broken all ties with the idea that artistic skill is of essential, and not negligible, importance, and moved on as if there isn't an ocean of art-historical past behind them. Skill should not exclusively "(lie)...ready-made in the properties of the medium...in the two-dimentionality of the picture-plane, in the volumetric properties of sculpture," but in the experienced hands and mind of the artist. As de Duve says, "the future...belongs to our past."

I found interesting de Duve's idea that art teaching can be divided into the "academic model," which "believes in talent," and the "Bauhaus model," which "believes in creativity." As I suggested earlier in my blog, I don't think we "have to choose between talent and creativity," we can choose both, and we would be stronger artists if we (somehow) incorporated both ideologies into our overall philosophy of art. That is, we can choose to develop our artistic "talent" through hard work and study, but we can also cultivate our sense of "creativity" and experimentation. Perhaps it would be unwise to discard either ideology; maybe talent without creativity is too academic, rigid and unexperimental, and creativity without talent is too reckless and unfocused... We should try to not be "people who have pushed the rejection of both the metier and the medium to the point where their only technique is the approriation of ready-mades or people who, through simulation, succeed in denying imitation and invention at the same time," and rather be artists who employ both ideologies (that of "talent-metier-imitation" AND "creativity-medium-invention") in some way in our art.

All of de Duve's talk about what kind of art teaching is being used made me wonder about the University of Minnesota's preferences. What "model of art teaching" does the U of M employ?

I'm always the first post and it makes me cry.

thats so funny Ethan. i sat down to read this, i couldnt see your name at the bottom but i knew it was you. scrolling down and seeing your second comment made me smile.

In de Duve’s piece, he contends that contemporary art education has been degraded from the modernist model, which emphasized creativity over talent and invention over imitation. While he seems to believe that the modernist model was an improvement over the previous academic approach, the post-modern developments are much more shallow and contrived. In the final paragraph, he summarizes:
“It is thus my contention, which I really want to offer as an open basis for discussion, that the triad of notions, “attitude-practice-deconstruction,� is not the post modern paradigm that supposedly substituted for the modern paradigm, “creativity-medium-invention.� It is the same one, minus faith, plus suspicion.�
While he recognizes that the organizing principles of the contemporary school can produce “strong� art, he also claims that “for the teaching of art they are sterile.� I hope that this is not the case. Although sometimes they seem to me a but suspicious, and even a bit void of hope and faith, I don’t think that the fundamentals of contemporary art school are entirely hollow. While sometimes attitude does seem a bit ridiculous, practice and deconstruction are combined with creativity, medium and invention. Why is it necessary for one philosophy to entirely replace the other?

Rowan, I found it interesting to see which parts of this analysis really bothered you. First of all, you talk about innate talent being a myth. After stating that no one is born with certain abilities, you go on to talk about how much work it takes to truly develop a skill. Of all the people in this group, to me, your work contains the most evidence of both innate talent and hard, concentrated skill development. Your technical abilities are amazing, and, excluding the more fantastic imagery you invent, your work does not need the “crutch� of creativity or invention. Despite your claim that talent is not something innate, I would argue that there are very few people who can create photo-realistic images with graphite, no matter how hard they work at it. Instead, the rest of us have to rely on intuition, practice, and even a bit of deconstruction. I’d be really curious to know what others think of this.

This being said, I can also see why you “can't fathom why so many artists of today have severed all connection with traditional artistic ideas, broken all ties with the idea that artistic skill is of essential, and not negligible, importance, and moved on as if there isn't an ocean of art-historical past behind them.� I would have trouble with this too, but don’t believe that its entirely true. It seems to me that any contemporary piece that will last beyond its own one moment HAS to value skill and history. It has to present itself within a larger context, and it has to value craftsmanship. Attitude for its own sake IS hollow, and has no longevity. Perhaps skill has become an anomaly in the sense that it is sometimes replaced by concept, but i think there is a skill to be developed in arriving at a valuable concept, as well as in using visual language to communicate that concept. Am I understanding your point correctly? And by the way, I don’t mean to pick on you, but as you pointed out, you are always the first to post. Please don’t cry. :)

Although it frustrates me to receive “a diagnosis� without any suggestion of a cure, it was interesting to revisit the idea of “teaching� or “learning� art and to see the “trials and errors� of methods derived throughout the history of art-education. It is also interesting to see perspectives of each of us students who are currently under a direct influence of this topic.

I personally agree with Ethan's perspective about the “talent�, that it is not necessarily predetermined as de Duve mentioned but is something we develop through experiences. Some may have born with genetic advantages or disadvantages (synesthesia, savants, etc...), but I believe that it is fair to think in general term that people with “more talent� simply means that they have stimulated more neurons that composes the skill they possess through what ever experience they have gone through (hard work, practice, thinking more often, relativeness of daily activities, concentration, etc...) . Ethan's brain and muscles must have gone through more experiences related to creating photo realistic imagery than mine did, thus he is more talented in terms of creation of photo realistic imagery than I am. Those of us who cannot exceed others in certain “talent� from a hard work is possible that we are using less effective method of hard work than those others who are “more� talented. This is why I see the apprenticeship as a great method of art-education. If I want to obtain a skill level of Ethan's, it is helpful to observe every aspect of his life to see what experiences composes his “talent�. Thus I support the idea of “imitation� as part of education.

The “creativity� is of course also important in art-education. But I think the creativity comes after you have come to a point where you are comfortable with your own “talent�.

There is an interesting teaching in Japanese martial art Kendo, that I want to mention because I find an interesting relevancy in this topic of art-education. It is called “Shu Ha Ri� and it consists of three words that each means “to protect/preserve/obey�, “to break/defeat� and “to depart/leave�. This basically explains the important steps in learning your “art�: First is to protect and obey the teaching you receive. Once you've mastered the teaching you will try to “break� or defeat it, to prove that you have surpassed it. Then finally you are ready to depart from the teaching and to create your own. I find this relevant because the progress of art-education de Duve mentioned seem to follow the same order. Imitation to invention, then to deconstruction.

Ethan, I bet we all appreciate people who write first. Thanks for your initiative!

Mel, I agree with you that the contemporary art that stands out in history has to have some kind of quality that is relevant to the context of its time. Though many times you don't agree, you have to live with the society's perspective of qualities.

DeDuve’s essay covered many topics that I often think about and question in regards to my own art practice and appreciation of other artists’ works. I’ve realized that I put equal emphasis on both creativity and craftsmanship when viewing and creating art. The works that I respect most are those that have a balance between excellent craft and strong ideas. If there is too much of one without the other, I find myself distracted by this imbalance. For example, in a critique in my book arts class last year, one student wrote a beautiful story about the relationship between her and her father. There was no doubt that this was a compelling text but her execution of the physical book was shoddy and half fast. I wanted so badly to enjoy the entire experience, but the lack of craftsmanship took away from the richness of the story.

In regards to Rowan’s comments on innate talent versus skill, I believe there is such a thing as natural talent. Of course, this talent cannot be fully realized without hard work and commitment to a set of skills. I believe that talent for art-making, or music, or carpentry, or cookery, can come much more naturally to certain individuals. Some students have to work harder than others to create work that is equal, or sometimes even lesser, in quality than another “more talented� student. But something that deDuve fails to mention is passion. No matter how much talent one possesses, without a passion for one’s work they won’t get anywhere.

DeDuve writes, “…most schools keep a painting studio, a sculpture studio, a printmaking studio and so on, they have added to the list a “mixed media�, an “interdisciplinary�, or a “free-for-all� studio…which definitely indicates that the teaching of art no longer rests on an aesthetic commitment to the specificity or the purity of the medium.� I think that focusing and developing skills in one area or medium builds a strong foundation in for visually communicating our ideas. Like Yui mentions, creativity comes after you have reached the point of being comfortable with your own talent. Learning all the printmaking processes felt like a rite of passage before I could move on to larger mixed-media installations. We shouldn’t ignore the traditions of specific media, but I think it is progressive to move forward in cross discipline, exploratory manner.

Thierry de Duve raises the question of where does art and art education go next. He talks of the difference between the classical academic model and the Bauhaus model. As Rowen and Mel pointed out, the classical model relies on the notion of tradition/imitation, technique and talent. The Bauhaus model champions creativity, medium and invention. The postmodernist equivalent of "talent and creativity" is "Attitude". By attitude he means the introduction of french theory into most art schools. An example of this "critical attitude" is all of the french art theory and philosophy that we have been tackling in this very class. Our good friends Roland Barthes and Jean Baudrillard.

After talking to Clive Murphy in the visiting artist class I got to thinking about the role education in changing society. He was talking about how the revolution of modernism is over but that modernism is very much alive in the mainstream. As clive said Ikea is the embodiment of modernism. It has been incorporated into every aspect of our lives. Our cultures architecture and design incases us in modernity. It is so present that I often overlook it, even though I worked as a graphic designer and constantly employed it's principles. It was a revolution that was won overtime through modernist teaching in education. In the past I have questioned what arts role is and who our audience is. I overlooked one of the most important vehicles for information dissemination. It's not just mass media, it's education. All of these progressive ideas that have changed our society have done so through osmosis; from academia to the commercial world.

All of this being said I wonder as does de Duve, what is the next paradigm? Are we in the midst of a paradigm shift? I believe we most likely are. We have played out many of the ideas of postmodernism so what comes next? I am curious to know what educational model de Duve used for his one month dry run. In general I enjoyed this reading. I especially liked the way the de Duve ended this essay. The idea that the most important thing we can do to pave new ground is to "reconstitute a community of good artists who love art, who respect each other and their students, and who take their task as transmitters seriously".

I would post first if I could Rowen, but unfortunately critical theory is not as easily digestible for me as it is for you. Keep up the good work! The fact that you are the first to post every week illustrates the idea that there is some sort of talent. I think in the end a persons proficiency in something is determined by a combination of practice and talent. I only say this because I have experienced it in my own life. Everyone is wired a little differently. I grew up having to overcome learning disabilities. Reading and writing were and still are difficult for me where as things of an analytical and visual nature came much easier.

I'd also like to respond to Mel and Rowen's reaction to the ideas of skill and craftmanship. Rowan talked of the degradation of craftsmanship. I think there are many different forms of craftsmanship. Some are more obvious than others. It is very easy to see evidence of skill when talking about photorealist painting. You know your done when it looks like your source image. I spent the better part of my undergrad perusing this sort of representation so I do appreciate it. But in regards to abstraction and conceptual art there is a whole different set of criteria, skills and craftsmanship that goes into it. I am assuming that Rowan is talking about the whole "slacker esthetic" or "art school esthetic" as it has been dubbed, when talking of the importance of artistic skill(Examples of such work: http://www.newmuseum.org/exhibitions/4). I think even these avenues involve a sort of skill and practice. There is good slacker art and bad slacker art. Just because it looks easy doesn't mean it is. The hard part with many of the latter avenues that I spoke of, is to know what to do and when to stop. This sort of intuition and restraint is far more elusive than some of the more traditional artistic endeavors. I don't mean to be combative. I'm just trying to open up the conversation a bit. Hopefully you can see that I respect all of you and your opinions.

I was wondering the same thing Mel was wondering: "Why is it necessary for one philosophy to entirely replace the other?" Why can't we take elements from different models of art teaching philosophy and incorporate them into an open, comprehensive philosophy? Obviously, at one time or another, there was something valuable to both the academic model and the "Bauhaus model." However "obsolete" de Duve may think they are now, neither of them were complete failures because they can be learned from, and they should both be thought about carefully to inform future teaching models.

Hey Mel! :) First of all, thanks for your compliment. While I realize that this is somewhat off the subjects de Duve was exploring, I wanted to say that sometimes I have trouble differentiating between "skill" and "talent," and I often wonder if they're the same exact thing. For example, if you were watching Michelangelo chip away at the David with his tools, would you be watching Michelangelo demonstrate his "skill" or his "talent"? Perhaps all of us have certain "predispositions" for abilities, and, as Robin said, they can't achieve full fruition without work. I realize that our behaviors aren't exclusively determined by "nuture," or environment, and that "nature", or biology, plays an important role in our eventual abilities, behaviors, choices, and lifestyles, but I guess I sometimes tell myself that "skill" and "talent" are the same exact thing because I want to deeply beware, and be as scared as hell, of any artistic philosophy that doesn't strenuously advocate work as its primary element. Of course, what is "work"? Work can be mental or physical, no? Anyway, I'm not sure I reached any conclusions, but I hope all of that makes sense...

I agree with you, Mel, that "attitude for its own sake is hollow, and has no longevity," and perhaps "skill," too, by itself, without any creativity or "attitude" behind it, is also hollow. And I also agree with you that "there is a skill to be developed in arriving at a valuable concept, as well as in using visual langage to communicate that concept." I would argue that a good concept and skill are both essential, or at least very important, to successful art-making.

As I read this weeks reading by De Duve, I couldn’t help but wonder why he was taking us on a history lesson of teaching philosophies in the arts as they applied to the eras before and through Modernism, Postmodernism and beyond. As I read I didn’t get the sense that he subscribed to these beliefs, but completely understood his reasons once I got to the last paragraph of the reading.

Duve was trying to develop a strategy for teaching art to others. And in trying to develop his strategies he looked back at the eras of art history and the popular methods of those times. Each problematic in their own ways, but not without their own points and values. In my opinion, none of them were right, because as I’ve said in other responses to other writings I believe there is more than one way of looking at things, no matter the particular era we live in.

All of us have to study the history and theory of art as a requirement of perusing our academic goals. And for those of us who go on to teach and educate the generation that follows us in artistic practice, we will have to develop our own teaching philosophies and strategies. We will have to look back at our academic experience, beliefs, and various styles we’ve been exposed to, and decide for ourselves what works for us. They might not agree or run parallel to the popular teaching style of the post-postmodern era that awaits its respective –ism, but that does not mean our teaching philosophies will be wrong. I believe that we ourselves are the best teachers we will ever have.

We have to decide for ourselves. I think this is why Duve offered a diagnosis, without the suggestion of a cure.

Oh my existence! I was able top post from home for the first time!

In response to Ethan’s post, I too find most of these absolutes in teaching styles depressing. To me, civilization, as well as the human condition, is fluid, in flux and constantly changing. If change is constant, how can any one era be completely right in any matter, let alone the teaching of art? And as far as your tears, I sincerely, hope they are metaphorical. Many aspects of this writing reminded me of your talents, skills and ability to imitate reality to such precision. Most of my life I drew, and drew, and drew. I frustratingly developed skills that I eventually abandoned to painting and sculpting. And in comparison to your writing, I look at my own and wonder why I don’t think, respond, or even understand as quickly as you. You might be the most academic of us, I mean no offense to any one else, but that is no reason to cry.

I also really enjoyed Yuichiro’s parallel of the teaching of Kendo to the teaching of art through its era of -isms. Of all the responses this comparison stuck in my head the most.

I agree whole-heartedly with Robin when she says she respects art that has a balance between excellent craft and strong ideas. It seems that the pendulum has swung to both extremes in the historical periods this essay covers. Once focused on the craft and skill of imitating life and nature on the canvas, then swinging all the way to the side of conceptual ideas as art, invention, and imagination. The author describes both as now being dead. So where does this leave us now? Destruction as our only option left? I feel that the pendulum needs to swing back to the middle and find a balance. I attended a book arts conference last summer at MCBA and I will never forget during one of the roundtable discussions the head curator said “we need to bring craft and concept back together again�. That line really resonated with me, and that is the line I thought of immediately after reading Thierry de Duve’s essay. So much art today is either ‘craft without concept’ or ‘concept without craft’. When there is strength in both, the work stands above the rest and has a timeless quality to it.

“The Seventies thought that art had to be willed, whether it aligned itself with some political programme bathed in revolutionary rhetorics, or whether it saw itself as the relentless critique of the dominant ideology.� I feel that direction only grew since then, and the recent ‘deconstruction’ in art is a reaction against that stiff and automatic alignment. An attempt to wipe the slate clean and start fresh again, to take back the text, language, colors, and actions that have been stolen and pounded into meaninglessness. Forest fires at first glance seem so terrible, but really are necessary in order for the forest to continue growing.

I sometimes have this nagging feeling come over me while making art of having to justify everything I am doing, to align it to some movement, or to steer it towards the critique of a dominant ideology/power structure. And it really bothers me. I put a lot of energy into giving myself the ‘permission’ to make art that is simply a sincere expression of spirit, with no hidden agenda or strings attached. Art that holds that quality seems so free and untouchable, so precious. What is wrong with creating something simply because you want to see it become? IS there anything wrong with that? Creating something simply because it ‘feels’ right. Just let it be undefined and raw. Then let it slowly come into focus over time, like a Polaroid picture.

Has this culture's capacity to invent without looking back dried up?
In order to go back to the beginning do we need to take apart everything that exists behind us?
Is it part of the cycle of things?
Is the return to the natural world the same as pushing the 'reset' button?
Is the creeping return of primal drums and percussion in music this search for the foundation again?
Should we throw out the Pro Tools and work with only 4-tracks again?
Or better yet, a mono track live in the present moment, right now?
Should we start embracing spontaneity and imperfections in our art and lives?
Would that be a radical and subversive act in the present moment?
Should we let the wildernesses burn to nourish the seedlings?

I found it interesting that this was a paper delivered at a conference in 1993 about todays fine art education and the crisis in art schools. This is a talk about teaching, the teaching of art. The different schools behind teaching; their successes and failures. I am pleased with his final statement that there is no ready-made solution to the crisis in art school. That the first thing to do is reconstitute a community of good artists who love art and respect each other and their students. BRILLIANT! Then he suggests taking the task seriously and dont try to unite around a banner. I feel relief when I read this .
I was excited to read Ben's response and see his recognition of education's role as information dissemination. Its totally old school but I think education is the most subversive and successful tool out there. Part of learning all this theory is to digest and understand and put it in the tool bag. I guess I do agree that everyone has creativity but that talent is a couple of parts inherent and a whole lot of work. So in some way parts of all the schools modeled in this talk have relevance: conceptualizing, deconstructing, imitating, knowing your medium, to art making right now and what having that knowledge will lead an artist to create.
Im smiling at Sam's questions because part of me wants to suggest that Pro Tools have their place and we can still have four tracks and mono tracks, in fact need them, as in Derrida's urge to think about difference and repetition together. Between the live voice creating newness and the trace that supplants and supplements the missing orgin, which shows the link dismantling their expected opposition. Ultimately I think it is up to the artist to construct his/her own artistic culture.
It really is only through making any work that any information is forthcoming.

This essay forms a nice companion to the Irvine piece in helping to simplify and sort out the complicated web of theoretical priorities that seem to steer this ungainly whale of a ship we call “the art world.� By portraying the three paradigms of art education as caricatures -- each within its historical context -- de Duve makes a convincing case for his interpretation of each. From my extremely limited experience with organized art education, his observations ring true. I’m sure that elements of both the academic and the Bauhaus models continue to influence contemporary teaching -- as he admits, “In the everyday reality of art schools things are a lot more complex, more subtle, more ambiguous.� However, reading descriptions of these pedagogical approaches helps us to navigate our ambiguous priorities and start to articulate what we really value in art (and in art school?)

The de Duve essay raises a question for me: does the importance of “critical attitude� in an artist arise from the intellectual influence of the academy, or is the academy reacting to a perceived dominance of “critical attitude� in the larger art market? I’m sure it’s not a simple one-way bullet effect, but it’s an interesting power dynamic to consider. In describing the transition from academicism to the Bauhaus model, de Duve says “soon, art schooling was affected by the avant garde.� However, influence seems to have shifted back into the hands of the academic community – this time to uphold standards of theoretical practice rather than craftsmanship. Irvine points out that the art world has become increasingly professionalized, and the quantity of MFA degrees has skyrocketed. So, obviously this education system has a profound influence on working artists today, and even more so on the curators and dealers who drive the market. Furthermore, the ideas that apparently gave rise to the “critical attitude� paradigm (primarily French theory) are essentially academic ones.

One more thought: by reading this essay, perhaps we’re engaging in the ultimate art school meta-dialog. Not only do we deconstruct our own work and the work of our peers, but now we deconstruct the pedagogical values of the institution which teaches us. Indeed, it is this mode of thought which will best prepare us to play the role of what Irvine refers to as “court jesters in the art world.�

Word up, Sam.
Craft and concept can live in harmony once again!

I couldn't tell if you were being a little sarcastic and exasperated in your second post, or if you were shouting out an inspirational call to arms...? I’m pretty sure we’re on the same page, but I felt a little sheepish to think that you might be dissing lo-fi recording. I'm no luddite, and I like to think that my work isn't motivated by nostalgia, but I've been doing a lot with cassette tapes, and I've been recording on a cassette 4-track lately. I don’t have a problem with using the latest technology – indeed, I probably would if I had it at home. However, embracing spontaneity and imperfection is a big priority for me – communicating something with whatever materials I have on hand. And, here’s the thing: using ‘outdated’ methods or pieces of ‘junk’ material doesn’t necessarily mean sacrificing craftsmanship.

Currently, so few artists work exclusively in one medium (including myself), and sometimes it looks a little scatter-brained to me (not to suggest that I think everyone should work in one medium) The artist works in the medium that best fits the concept while having no time or patience to perfect the craft, the artist’s “hand� is lost. The work needs balance of craft and concept. It seems that emphasis on concept causes poor technique and great emphasis of good craftsmanship yields boring work. The work must be both conceptually engaging while still maintaining immaculate craft. In a time of over stimulation and goods that can be produced in mass quantity, art has a tough time grabbing attention. The craft of artwork must also exceed the craft of manufactured goods or it runs the risk of drowning in the sea shoddily constructed junk

In response to Robin:

"In regards to Rowan’s comments on innate talent versus skill, I believe there is such a thing as natural talent. Of course, this talent cannot be fully realized without hard work and commitment to a set of skills. I believe that talent for art-making, or music, or carpentry, or cookery, can come much more naturally to certain individuals. Some students have to work harder than others to create work that is equal, or sometimes even lesser, in quality than another “more talented� student. But something that deDuve fails to mention is passion. No matter how much talent one possesses, without a passion for one’s work they won’t get anywhere."

I completely agree, no matter how much talent one possesses, you need passion/drive/spirit in order to be able to proceed. While one can easily be talented, you have to want to you the talent or it will go nowhere.

De Duves thoughts were very interesting to me, particularly because I’ve been thinking about what how best to teach art a lot lately (both in the context of being a TA, but also as a student). I find myself comparing the way we are teaching beginning photography here to the ways I was taught, and as Bart mentioned, trying to construct my own ideas about an effective and engaging way to teach it. Presented in the article are vastly different ideas about how to teach art, and there are both helpful and detrimental aspects of each. De Duve says, “When the absence of models to be imitated begins to be felt as a loss and no longer as a liberation, this can only mean that this culture’s capacity to invent without looking back has dried up.� I do get the sense that in the present art world, things are slightly swinging from “attitude� or pure concept back to demonstrated skill and talent, with a mixture of the two being pretty magical (I definitely agree with Sam and Robin on that). We are wearing out the welcome of the “attitude-practice-deconstruction� paradigm. This makes sense-- since rebellion and subversiveness are cornerstones of the current art world, it inevitable that whatever paradigm is dominant will be overturned before too long. (It’s like a snake eating it’s tail….)

There is also something of a crisis in the medium of photography itself, which complicates how it is taught. I agree with Yui and Robin that an artist has to gain an understanding of their medium and how to manipulate it, but what happens when your medium is upended? Film and darkroom work are fading fast and being supplanted by digital, and the students know this, and sometimes I feel like we are teaching them some ancient, quaint way of making photographs. We might as well teach them the Daguerrotype process.

One idea from de Duve’s article that intrigued me was that the word “art� become taboo in art schools. De Duve says, “It was guilty of conveying some faith in the “essence� of art, I mean, in the existence of some transhistorical and transcultural common denominator among all artistic practices.� I began to imagine the different ways the mediums could be arranged, and where do other arts fit in, such as creative writing, dance, filmmaking and theater? Does it make sense to separate the visual arts anymore? Probably, just to have a system that makes sense and isn’t total chaos, but the system we have isn’t the only way and maybe not even the best way.

The ideas in Thierry de Duves essay are presented beautifully. The first few pages explain briefly how modern culture spoiled traditionalism. He explains how these new philosophies came into the world, forcing change in culture, art and academia. He then goes on to breakdown “the ways� artist are to be trained. de Duve enters the picture through the old school, talking about the standards of imitation and observation, individual talent and the cultivation of métier as what an artist must do and have to be successful. This is what teaching was based in. His essay continues through history to today and how art and art schools should function. I enjoyed reading this paper. I haven’t given much thought to how academia is presenting art training and this gave me a clear insight into different values one can covet and one can throw to the wind.

The division of attributes is what made this article read quickly for me, I want the facts of the argument and he gave me that. He also started his ideas before modernism which put a bigger context to being an artist. I’m not just fighting against modernism, but growing through all of time to be here in the time of now, the time of Talent and Creativity vs. Attitude. This made me think of the Y.B.A. and the attitude it takes to justify your work and get it into the world. I want to think attitude alone wouldn’t get you anywhere, there must still be talent that is needed and craftsmanship to cover, but then I remember Jeff Koons. This is the epitome of attitude alone, bringing him success. I am somewhat of a traditional girl. I want new and exciting ways to look at art and my own creative practice, but I find myself holding on to traditional ways of métier that have been instilled in me through my education. I say this about my history with Ceramics. There are ways to do things and that is how they should be done. Now that I am teaching young people that know nothing, I have the position to tell them how it is. I have to grade them in terms of creativity and imagination? Do I acknowledge their talent, or lack of? It’s all relative I guess. Thierry was probably not talking about foundation level ceramics at a state university.

This paper gave me a perspective on teaching and on looking at my art making that I didn’t have before. De Duve easily used the words talent, imitation, deconstruction, attitude and perception, because these thoughts were already in place, already dissected and reassembled. These notions and their meanings have been thought about for a long time now and I feel de Duve gives them a direction for me to fallow. When he mentions a new paradigm maybe taking place in art that makes me excited that something new is taking place and I want to believe that to be true. I don’t want to be clinging to the skirt of Modernism anymore.

hey Jonathan,
I was being totally sincere.
and a call-to-arms indeed.
and don't worry, I was certainly not dissing lo-fi recording.
I am also trying more and more to embrace the imperfections in both my art and life.
it is so much more human,
and that gives it a vitality that I am very drawn to.

I tend to agree with Ben that some art that looks deceptively easy to make, craft-wise, is in fact very carefully considered not so easily arrived at-- it can be quite a process. On some level, people want to be impressed with the craft, but if it is not an important aspect of the piece, other things like the concept are allowed to rise to the surface. On the other hand, if the craft is obviously shoddy, it probably detracts from the piece, or makes it into something else altogether, with different meanings.