[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Better_Than_You

As someone who goes to an Art school...

"Art schools can change too. The present goal of studio programs (and of ever more specialized art history programs) seems to be to narrow talent to a sharp point that can push its way aggressively into the competitive arena. But with markets uncertain, possibly nonexistent, why not relax this mode, open up education?"

I have to strongly disagree with this statement. Maybe its just Perpich, but when you walk into the visual arts gallery you see all different types of levels, ethics, and styles and don't see any narrowing of talent for the economic market. When you go to the media gallerys people may be inspired by mainstream concepts, but make them their own. When you go to Theatre shows there's lots of talent, but the people aren't judged on their beauty or how good they would look on screen or in a play, which seems to be a defining factor in box office/broadway hits. When you go to music shows the vibe the ensambles give off can range from 'oh, shit i'm in a garage listening to a really good band practice' to 'holy shit these people are amazing, why don't they have their own CD?'. As a literary arts student, I know for a fact that both readings we do on school grounds and outside of school are to have our voices heard. At this point in time we're still trying to find a stable writing voice, so our work is less for the audience and more for ourselves. Which, in my opinion, is fine. I can safely say that the group of kids I write with are intelligent human beings who can write for themselves about a topic, and if the audience is willing to grasp the meaning and subtext, it can really inspire and change the world in a positive light. The dance department is the only department that really prepares the kids for "real world" experiences, and I think thats okay because dance is a form of visual entertainment where rejection is much more personal and common. But its also important to mention that there are just as many 'fat' girls as their are stick thin ones. And the distribution of roles in the dances aren't based on weight or looks, and really don't matter at all because theyre such powerful dancers.

maybe it's just perpich! i googled that, seems like a nice school.

Originally Posted by Better_Than_You

"Why not make studio training an interdisciplinary experience, crossing over into sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, poetry and theology?"

Thats why you take academic classes while you're at school. It's not strictly art based. Not to mention the fact that Art and the subconcious is so deeply intertwined, to say that sociologic, psychologic, and philosophic factors don't play a key role in the art that is being created is to suggest its strictly being created for the economy. Maybe thats what some artists are beginning to do, but what gets anyone into art is putting emotion or thought into an abstract form and benefiting from it emotionally and/or visually. Any artists who doesn't do this on a concious level is not much of an artist at all.

i dont know that you take any more academic classes once you go into an mfa.
that;s why the quote follows thus:

Why not build into your graduate program a work-study semester that takes students out of the art world entirely and places them in hospitals, schools and prisons, sometimes in-extremis environments, i.e. real life? My guess is that if you did, American art would look very different than it does today.

----

Originally Posted by Better_Than_You

I understand that making a living off of your art is the main focus and goal for most beginning artists, but it's wrong. Which is what I saw the arguement in the article to be, but it was done cynically. Art is not dying and is under no danger of being made more commercial. Especially with the economy the way it is. After the great depression some of the greatest blues artists were born out of their financial trouble which lead to social trouble. Thats just one example.

well especially now, no it won't be more commercial-- cheeto's mortal enemy is probably shitting himself as we speak

 

 

Originally Posted by Better_Than_You

Call me an optimist, but I think this is going to do nothing but good for art. Making an assembly line of pleasing shit because you need it to be bought is no way to go living. Or creating. Once people realize that this is unrealistic (even if it takes extreme financial hardship to do so) I truly believe that art is going to take a new curve for the BEST.

yes, that's exactly what the writer of that article is saying though. i didn't read cynicism into it-- i read a sort of relief that the corporate hounddogs will keep their filthy paws off the art world for a while, and that having a salutary effect on the art world and art itself, with artist being forced our of the incestuous bubble of the corporate-supplied "art world"

i.e.-
Every year art schools across the country spit out thousands of groomed-for-success graduates, whose job it is to supply galleries and auction houses with desirable retail. They are backed up by cadres of public relations specialists — otherwise known as critics, curators, editors, publishers and career theorists — who provide timely updates on what desirable means.

Many of those specialists are, directly or indirectly, on the industry payroll, which is controlled by another set of personnel: the dealers, brokers, advisers, financiers, lawyers and — crucial in the era of art fairs — event planners who represent the industry’s marketing and sales division. They are the people who scan school rosters, pick off fresh talent, direct careers and, by some inscrutable calculus, determine what will sell for what.

That, he's saying, is ended, and we can hope for a return of "art that matters".

where will tracy emin find her dough now? hmmmm...