Arts & Academics
 

I got into an arguement with a friend the other day about her approach to making music, she's got skills but to my mind it seems like she went off to do her masters and came back bedazzled by critical theory and hack tutors who use deleuze and his ilk to obfuscate their lack of imagination. Plus most academics seem to me to be totally clueless about what happens outside of their own little academic scene, which seems bizarre to me.

What do you lot think about people who go off to do an arts course and then come back like they've come off the production line? do you think it is possible to show these people the error of their ways, or do you think i'd be beating my head against a brick wall?

stuff them to the gills with peyote and keep your fingers crossed

There are many problems in many areas of academia. One problem that besets art academics is they read Deleuze and read him wrong. Deleuze has a lot to offer, but I think many artists (and, now, many art critics and lecturers - it's endemic) fail to get a grip on Deleuze to the point where the art academy has taken mis-readings of Deleuze as empirical facts.

Luckily, artists don't need to be smart to be good; but the saturation of same ideas is fairly deplorable.

I do think that, while I find Banksy pretty boring, and his fans deplorable, part of the reason he's captured the public's (who is an idiot) imagination is because the world of academic art does seem to foster a cloistered set of closed influences. In one sense, it's important that the art world doesn't listen to Joe Public; on the other hand, it's equally important that London artists get out of Hoxton and start having a more interesting engagement with the world.

And this doesn't mean joining the fucking Stuckists.

dont even get me started on the music students. know it all brats that they are. just because you studied music doesnt mean you have some kind of god given right to talk down to everyone or your enjoyment of music is any greater.

I don't know, any approach to art is valid, but I've always seen my own artistic creation in an anti-philosophical light. A lot of my own music is created almost immediately after heavy study but is more like a catharsis of whatever sentimental baggage I've acquired while engaging in the intellectual instead of an attempt adopt those ideas into art. I'm not sure how Deleuze would be applied to art theory, besides maybe his "buggery" which seems antithetical to what I believe (i.e. being intellectual reinterpretation rather than emotion, and I only suppose because I've read little Deleuze). That strikes me as a recipe to make your art a constant victim to academic fashion and only interesting in that limited way. The only philosopher that I think has been valuable to my artistic approach would be Kierkegaard in straddling between the aesthetic life and the ethical life, but that's mostly retrospective.

have a read of this document and tell me what you all think
http://www.mediafire.com/?iyxc0mtyego

after we had our discussion my friend sent it as a "i think you should read this" sort of thing. it just seems like the typical claptrap to me, taking other people's words out of context, using specific terms without validation or explanation, putting words in an order that sounds like it means something important but is sufficiently vague so that people can divine whatever they want from it. hot air and drivel... or maybe it's over my head!

If you're extending this particular topic to criticize postmodern thought, that's kind of an easy and obvious argument to make. I think there's more potential in discussing the variety of approaches to art. Whining about the typical claptrap is always just as typical.

true, but when it's the same old same old and the work is a predictable rehashing of stuff from the 60s (the begining of art history, if i was to believe my tutors at school) and the sort of thing that only someone who has persued an academic path would make, and bears no relation to the world outside those realms..... I'm trying hard not to rant.

Then it is valid in that context and should be approach in recognition of that context. It's like trying to appreciate a Piet Moderian painting in the terms of Francisco Goya's. Intention is still relevant, if just partially.

Of course, though, they wouldn't be explicit about their context so that's kind of shit.

there is more potential in that, and i'm open to discussion.
not being a philosophy student though i don't really know the serious arguements for and against postmodernism, i just had to put up with it being appropriated constantly by idiots who were clearly taking a turn of phrase they liked and attaching their own meaning to it but name dropping the original author so as to give their own work the appearance of high minded endeavor.

it's mainly that i started this thread to blow off steam, claptrap is frustrating!

I don't think artists are taught. A creator of art can be an artist, but if you go to school for it, you're probably more than likely going to become a "craftsman". Why replicate and pay homage to necrophiliacized versions of shit people have been doing for 500 years? Remakes of remakes of sequels of remakes is the reason why art in general is a joke nowadays. Then again, there hasn't been much new to say, in general, for a long time. There's been some new ways to say it, but eh.

...Just... Whatever works, you know? Whatever a person feels comfortable doing. If they feel justified putting their expensive-ass (you know, cuz, school costs, like, money, and, um, stuff) "theory" to use, let them go for it. I've been called a "True artist" and "someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're doing" by an equal number of people, in the same way that "knowledgable" artists will be called "a real artist!" or "condescending idiots" in equal measure. Whatever a person wants to do with their time/money/art is their thing, so cool. Whatever. I don't personally feel like a school will teach me anything art-related, as art is just, uh, common sense to me.. but that's me.

Yeah, I think that has its origins in hermeneutics after Wilhelm Dilthey which was adopted by post-structuralists (or postmodernists, in the more general term).

I think we're very like-minded on this.

i guess what annoys me is the insular and self-referential nature of academia trundling along totally (and i think often deliberately) oblivious to the rest of world, but passing that on to people (by means of controlling eduction) as the "correct" or most desirable approach to making work.
my experience at art school was that the way the tutors would like you to rationalise everything goes directly in opposition to using your imagination freely, and that ultimately their use of critical theory was as a substitute for a lack of their own ideas.

Art isn't real.

If you can't do it, then teach.

Um.. what else.

My x went to art school for one semester and I often accompanied her and DAMN. Hottest girls I've ever seen at this school. Making shitty art. But still!

Yeah, there is a fine line that philosophy has walked since modernity between being truly relevant to the world in the way that only philosophy can be versus accusations from academic peers such as the sciences that philosophy is navel-gazing bullshit. It often alienates both in its attempt.

And considering that art has typically been a vessel of philosophy (via religion, to an extent) since even ancient Rome and before, art education embodies the dilemma.

My sister's boyfriend does this. He is a percussion student too, so when he is done spouting whatever boring shit he does, he just uses drum sticks on the ground in a really obnoxious way.

But oh yeah, art. I don't feel like discussing because I'm sure any discussion will turn into an intellectual circle jerk.

yeah, but studying the craft or technical skill has its place, i mean what would necrophagist be like if that guy and hadn't studied the guitar like an absolute bastard? Likewise Sun Ra studied music theory and technique extensively for years before he started performing his own stuff.

anyway, i don't agree with not being able to learn how to be an artist (or a better artist), there have been moments where somebody has said something and a light goes on in my head (for want of a better term), although these moments tend to be random and unpredictable, and likewise with technical practice, if you study the craft you will be better equipped to execute whatever ideas you have, whether you choose to use that skill or not is up to the individual, and generally speaking you will learn certain things more quickly in some environments than others (e.g. school vs home), although that works both ways.
there are things that can only be achieved through dogged technical practice, and it can lead to some pretty weird places, eg. after i had been studying drawing for sometime i would have sessions when i could see the air move, or at least that was what it looked like, my visual awareness seemed to reach a heightened level on good days, and this wouldn't have happened with out practicing drawing a lot, because practicing drawing is really learning how to look at things.
moments like those that are achieved through the craft/technical side can really feed into the imaginative side and allow your ideas to develop in ways you would never imagine without learning some technique concurrently.

sorry, i'm rambling, i should have gone to bed a couple of hours ago already.

To me art is just projecting the world you see to others. Because everyone views it differently. IT could be breathing and full of life, dead grey and black, withered and hopeless. Naive etc. Make perfect sense or make no sense. I'm not just talking about painting, writing, or music...it could even be how you act...

^ probably why I usually don't bother to read your posts

I just think that most of the art I find interesting is from people who are self-taught. If you go far enough back, all the original artists weren't taught, either, of course.. I like the idea of people trying to do new things. Obviously, having some respect for old traditions is fine, but I think you're either an artist or you're not. I don't think that's something that can be "taught", conventionally, and while going to school to further what you're interested in is fine, I think the true greats are usually just born that way, with a natural inclination and with common sense. I think I just have naturally tried to avoid "learning" anything, because.. well.. I don't want to. But that's me. Whatever works for people, again..

Still, you raise some interesting points, so feel free to keep rambling.

What constitutes this?

I fancy myself an artist, but I have an immensely difficult time expressing myself in many/any medium. Does that mean I'm not an artist?

Er, I'm just saying, for people creating art, as I said in the other post, you're either an artist (or perhaps an aspiring artist) or a craftsman. You're either doing something new and interesting or you're replicating something that's already been done. I do think there are plenty of things that are art-related that can't be taught, and those are the most important things.

Sorry, I'm really sleepy and probably not making myself clear.

But I will say, the best thing about art is the furthering of your techniques. Feeling like you're stumbling on something new.. really growing and learning and evolving.. and I think it's cool, whatever a person wants to do to further that technique.. whether it's school or whatever.. whatever a person needs to do to feel like they're making good work, even if its' by emulating other artists, I mean.. whatever makes you happy, right?

I think most artists, and people associated with the "Art world", take this shit all so seriously. I know a guy who sold a painting for $100 in New York and he thinks he's God. Shrug.

I've always wanted to go to film school just so I could drop out. I'd do it for the sake of performance art. You know, register for school, spend tons of money, maybe even rent some equipment, and then just fucking quit. All for the sake of art. No reason besides art. I mean, anyone here ever been to a film school? I remember my friend (who dropped out) telling me about a kid he beat the crap out of... this kid brought in footage of his penis covered in a tea cozy while a clown covered in pancake-batter pointed (while laughing maniacally) at a photo of a stewardess with Down's Syndome and told the class it represented the duality of man's fear of death vs his fear of truly...I mean TRULY being....alive?

yeah, but just because someone is self taught or born with (or without) massive talent it doesn't mean they don't have anything to learn from others. i think you can learn just as much from doing what doesn't come naturally, or feels uncomfortable to do, as you can from what you would do if left to your own devices, sometimes more so. it's not good to operate solely in a comfort zone.

Perhaps. I dunno. I just love me some forward-thinking self-taught auteurs. So sexy.

Conceptually speaking, your own art (and really anyone's) is replicating something that's already been done.

Not on purpose. I try to completely destroy my influences. And I've done a few things that I can almost gurantee no one's ever done before, or at least no one that anyone (including myself) will ever know about. As far as music goes, I invented "egrind"/"cybergrind" (along with SMES and Libido Airbag) with one of my first bands. I think I've done some pretty new things.. I try to at least... I mean, I'm pretty well-versed when it comes to the kind of stuff I'm into and I consciously try to avoid imitating what's been done before. I don't like homages and shit. But just by existing at all, you're probably going to do some things that have already been done. Still, find me a 40 minute "movie" about friendship completely done in MSPaint and with a webcam with a soundtrack made mostly from pitchshifted fart sounds (literally) and I'll eat my words. Haha.

Then again, you do have OCD.

Let me go beyond that and say that obviously you're going to have something in common with someone else in the field you're dabbling in, but the best artists -- to me -- aren't faceless, they have their trademarks. Watch a Lynch or a Godard or a Herzog film; you can tell within 5 minutes of any of those what film you're watching. Look at a Francis Bacon painting or something... obviously, there's some similarities here and there, but these artists have... furthered certain techniques to establish individuality. Or something.

OCD rules. It really annoyed one girl I dated though. Oh well.

academia and arts criticism can be very self serving. while i see there is a place for it i donot want to be a part of it. being that i work in an area that can be pretenious as all fuck and hold quite alot of snobbery, particularly when you are new around the scene, you find you clan within that. theatre criticism at least in australia is very very parasitic but also a necessary evil. i find theatre academia to be quite deplorable a good percentage of the time. particularly because very few academics are involved in the professional theatre community at least in my state and some of the other states where i have worked. academia can suck the soul right out of art because it really takes away the immediate visceral and kinetic responses that people may have when engaging in art by far overthinking and a belief that them and them alone are the only people who truly understand an artists work.

"Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky / Like a patient etherised upon a table"

Haha, I was just on an imdb message board and someone (not me) wrote this:

"As for dropping out, I found that trying to "teach" someone film is as pointless as trying to teach someone to be a creative writer... You either have it in you or you don't.

Some of the best directors in cinema history never stepped foor inside a film school...and some of the worst teach there now. "

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446685/...t/39887641?p=3


rElevant, yes.. no?

Sure, if we all agree that the best directors are the same as whoever this guy on imdb think they are, but I doubt it.

Someone once told me that in creative lines of work you'll have "teachers" in academia and then "anti-teachers" outside. If you're too comfortable within the ivory tower then you'll make a great teacher. If you're too comfortable outside then you'll make a great anti-teacher. The trick according to this person is to collide the teachers with the anti-teachers and use the left over gore & tendons on their spinal columns as wings to soar like an eagle to the sound of your last

I've heard that a gram of anti-teachers outweighs the sun.

I wouldn't know about things like that. Cool thread though.

You still trying to get me back for the other day or something?

I don't know, dude, like, whatever your reality makes it out to be, you know.