Academic Art
Pretty regularly I hear comments about art today being academic. Here's one from a commenter (Bob) at Edward Winkleman's blog:
"Academic" seems to be a complaint against MFA graduate programs. But this usage is taking one's opponent's terms and twisting them against him (a bit like how "liberal" has come to be a criticism and a word that even liberal democrats avoid). MFA programs sprung from a reaction against academic art (art academies that taught their students formulaic, 19th century style painting and sculpting). There is nothing that professors teaching in graduate school would like more than for their students to have unique and personal artistic voices.
It seems like everyone likes to bash MFA programs. I believe the "academic" slur comes from those who dislike conceptual art... because it is true that graduate students are pushed to have a conceptual underpinnings to what they do. That isn't the same as pushing them to do conceptual art, it's really more about steering students towards deeper water and away from doing decorative art. Perhaps for people who dislike conceptualism, taking a stand against MFA programs is a bit like the NRA fighting a ban on teflon bullets--it's pretty far away from their core concern, but they don't want to give an inch
In a way it seems like it's in everyone's self-interest to bash MFA programs... (Disclosure, I teach in an MFA program, so it's in my self-interest to defend them). Artists who didn't get a graduate degree can imply that their art is more real because they weren't infected by the academy. Those who did go to graduate school can (and often do) that it was a waste of time and they didn't learn anything (i.e., their art is wholly theirs and owes nothing to anyone else).
We live in an age where art is highly academic and therefore exclusive to that audience.Using the term "academic art" this way feels a bit like how terms are used in politics--where the terms you choose are highly-charged in their implications and are really intended to be salvo in a political battle.
"Academic" seems to be a complaint against MFA graduate programs. But this usage is taking one's opponent's terms and twisting them against him (a bit like how "liberal" has come to be a criticism and a word that even liberal democrats avoid). MFA programs sprung from a reaction against academic art (art academies that taught their students formulaic, 19th century style painting and sculpting). There is nothing that professors teaching in graduate school would like more than for their students to have unique and personal artistic voices.
It seems like everyone likes to bash MFA programs. I believe the "academic" slur comes from those who dislike conceptual art... because it is true that graduate students are pushed to have a conceptual underpinnings to what they do. That isn't the same as pushing them to do conceptual art, it's really more about steering students towards deeper water and away from doing decorative art. Perhaps for people who dislike conceptualism, taking a stand against MFA programs is a bit like the NRA fighting a ban on teflon bullets--it's pretty far away from their core concern, but they don't want to give an inch
In a way it seems like it's in everyone's self-interest to bash MFA programs... (Disclosure, I teach in an MFA program, so it's in my self-interest to defend them). Artists who didn't get a graduate degree can imply that their art is more real because they weren't infected by the academy. Those who did go to graduate school can (and often do) that it was a waste of time and they didn't learn anything (i.e., their art is wholly theirs and owes nothing to anyone else).
posted by Ethan at
8:32 AM
2 Comments:
I'm not really qualified to talk about what artists say about other artists' backgrounds. But as an outsider, I wonder how much of the criticism is about communication? The messages being transmitted by much modern conceptual art are coded in fairly specialized language—if the artist is not careful, the art can fail to communicate its message to anyone except other trained professionals. And in my limited experience those in or just out of an MFA program have a lot of trouble with this.
I think that MFA programs are awesome. I also think that in addition to "conceptual" and "decorative" art, there's a third, most important category of "communicative" art. I hope that art programs are good at teaching it.
You're on to something... I think you're right that it's about communication. I just took part in a series end-of-the-term critiques and communicating with the viewer did come up in several of them--so it is a concern that's present.
But having all art fully accessible to people who haven't studied contemporary art isn't necessarily a great thing either--that would be like having all books at a first grade level.
Perhaps this is a bit interesting & relevant... I went to PS1 yesterday and among the exhibits I saw was "Senso Unico," which was a survey of several globe-trotting Italian artists. There were a couple of large, pale paintings of heads to which I asked my friend "what do you take from that?" We agreed that without some further info about the artist's intention it's nearly impossible to evaluate the paintings. While writing this comment, I went to the PS1 site to see whose art that was and learned it was Vanessa Beecroft's. Suddenly, since I'm familiar with some of her earlier works, the paintings were given a context and I felt like they were communicating to me.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home