OK so I'm taking a break from Advanced Tutorial hell to finally write a response to our last reading-
When Form Has Become Attitude- And Beyond by Thierry de Duve.
While it is interesting hearing about past educational models and the ways in which they reacted to and evolved form each other, i was more interested in the
beyond. But to start, de Duve established what he thinks are the three past/current models of art "pedagogy" as:
The Academic- The Academic Model is based off of talent, metier and imitation.
Talent-In this context we are looking at talent an unequally distributed gift, in which Matt Hart described as either you had a lot of (being a genius) or a little bit of (being an artisan).
Metier- Metier is literally translated as "a field of work; occupation, trade or profession." de Duve describes it as that which is practiced, transmitted, learnt, based in tradition, coming from experience, and always received from the past. It relies on specialized skills, artisan habits, sleights of hand, rules of composition, and cannons of beauty.
Imitation- Here imitation is defined by reproduction, sameness, and continuity.
The Modernist, or Bauhaus Model- This model is based on creativity, medium, and invention.
Creativity- This is something believed to be inherited by all in a lateral fashion, and is equated with saying that "everyone is an artist."
Medium- The Medium is defined as that which is questioned, communicates or is communicated, discovered, a language, based in experimentation and received from nowhere. de Duve pinpoint three flaws that he believes to exist in this method.
1. That it creates a distrust of technical skill because "mastering the medium gets in the way of questioning the medium."
2. Emphasis denies the possibility of "conceiving that there is art in between the mediums."
3. Trying to teach the future is impossible.
Invention- Invention does more or less what its title implies, it produces, is based in otherness, and is novelty. Again, de Duve points out three flaws that arise from the teaching of invention:
1. It judges students on a quasi-quantative basis, novelty, frequency, and freshness, which are all things that might or might no already be present in a work of art, and unrelated to a students progress.
2. Experimentation with the medium is encouraged while it is still contained within the bounds of emphasis.
3. It rejects content and focuses on the formal aspects of a work.
de Duve pronounces both of these methods obsolete (although I think the Art Academy is by and large a modernist school), and introduces a new variable: Po-Mo.
The Post-Modern Model (if that's not a contradictory statement in itself)- This contemporary model is based on attitude, practice, and deconstruction.
Attitude- de Duve describes attitude as "a zero degree of psychology, a neutral point amidst ideological choices, a volition without content." Which more or less, means if you can convince us of its purpose and meaning of art then it is indeed art.
Practice- This is the part of the reading that I found to be the most difficult. What does this really mean anyways? de Duve writes that, "Applied to painting, for example, it allowed us to conceive of painting not in terms of a specific skill (such as entailed by the notion of metier), nor in terms of a specific medium (such as the Greenbergian flatness), but in terms of a specific historical institution called 'pictorial practice.'" This leads me to believe that practice is in itself a blank screen, if you will, that we use to mask the notion of art-making, specifically. We don't paint a painting, because this is too specific, we "practice" a "method" of whatever we are trying to accomplish. Practice for me is a more general term which is inclusive of all the varying forms of art-making, because lets face it, preforming a performance piece or finding a found object, etc. etc. doesn't sound as convincing or as glamorous as an art
practice.
Deconstruction- Personally, I have very little problems with the method of deconstruction and I find it really interesting, especially studying design. Although I do understand the feelings of disparity and meaninglessness inherent in it, and all of the bad art and design that has been made because of it. de Duve believes that it is "the symptom of the disarray of a generation of art teachers who have never themselves been submitted to the discipline of imitation. The result is that students who haven't had the time to construct an artistic culture of any kind are being tortured in the deconstructive suspicion proper to our time." While I find this statement somewhat bitter and presumptuous, I do agree with the fact that it can leave a bunch of unsuspecting freshmen confused out of their minds. We have grown up in a culture where we are constantly lied to, but a growing majority of us know it. After the revolutions of the 60s and 70s, its not so taboo for us to question the things that we've been taught. Overall I would say this is a good thing, although the downside is a feeling of hopelessness and despair towards the possibilities of change. Which brings we to the post-post-modern,
Post-Post-Modern (predictions)- Integrity, Activation, and Reconstruction.
Integrity- I have to agree with Gary's prediction on this one. Integrity is by far the most suitable word for artistic measurement in this case. It is a dedication to a principle or moral, an establishment of a specific purpose. The first step is to pinpoint what is important to ourselves as individuals, to find our own individual artistic and spiritual values apart from any institution.
Activation- For me this is putting convictions into motion, to make something happen. The materialization is dependent on the most effective way for each individual to live up to their values.
Reconstruction- I had written this one down in my notes before it was mentioned and I feel that of everything this is the most vital part of the cycle (or what i would like to at least hope could happen). Jerry Gaines, my semiotics professor, always said that when we deconstruct something it is useless unless we reconstruct it afterwards. This thought is what sort of makes me feel optimistic about post-modernism and deconstruction. I think that it is important that we take things apart, layer by layer, to better understand them so that they can be reformulated to serve a different, hopefully positive, function. The job of dismantling has been done for us, now as a younger generation it is our job to establish a new set of artistic and cultural standards, to find our own truths in the mess of data presented to us. For me, reconstruction is an establishment of priorities, goals, and meanings, as with integrity also. The role of government, media, etc. etc. have already been dismantled for us, now we need to find a way to overcome it, to make the things happen that we would like to see done, and to live in the ways that we find suitable for ourselves as individuals and independent communities, all of which I think are achievable with the help from tools innate in art and design.
I completely understand that this is really idealistic and more a reflection of what I would like to happen more so than what I think might actually happen, but why the hell not. I've always been a strong proponent of exaggeration as an effective means of understanding, and a way to narrow down a perspective. I think that the most important thing is to establish a set of values for yourself, not what you've been told to believe in by your parents, religious leaders, or television, to turn on and take action in accordance with these beliefs, and help reestablish positive meaning within your community of friends, neighbors, or peers, etc. etc., and the world around you through what you know best (that's art-making in case you were wondering).
