What a joke. What was their concept? Their thesis? If I had to guess, I would say that their basic message was "you don't need art school to make art... it doesn't produce successful artists, just people who work in the art world... which you don't need to make art... so lets get rid of the whole system... curriculum is stifling, we can figure it out on our own." Maybe this itself isn't so bad, but the way they presented the info was less than persuasive. According to them, the majority of art students are white females from rich families. Their solution to this problem? Well since most successful artists are men (and note, all of BHQF), clearly art schools aren't in the business of making artists... so the system is flawed and needs to be abandoned. Umm, how 'bout lets talk about democratizing higher-ed for the arts so that it isn't so privileged... make school less expensive so that attendence becomes feasible for a broader audience? And correction, "art schools" have not historically been for women only, as they claimed (!). The discourse they promised? At the end of their shoddy powerpoint presentation (colored with more fictional narratives and clever photos than substance), they invited people to come talk to them outside whilst having a smoke break. As one of my friends stated, "it seemed like whiny, rich white kids detailing their new first-world problem." Or according to someone else, "they probably graduated from art school and decided that they wanted to travel across the country so they scammed people to subsidize their tour under the guise of creative discourses on art education." This group got CCS (a very expensive art school) and MoCAD to co-sponsor the event which in essence called for their heads. Clever.
Beside my gripes with their presentation, I disagreed with some of their conclusions (or lack there of). Okay, they briefly mentioned some DIY art collectives as examples of alternative solutions... but grouped on one page of the powerpoint with no details... no concrete ideas on how to start this and make it work. But beyond that, can't it be argued that art education stimulates creative thinking? Analytical thinking? What about method, technique, history? They seem to favor libertarianism over beauracracy, which is okay in theory, but is a go-it-alone attitude really the best way to cater to everyone who shows an interest in art? Is art only for those who make an effort to be "an artist?" They suggested that the "what is art" question should only be answered (or taken back) by artists. But isn't the purpose of art to reach out to a larger humanity? So it belongs to everyone, right? True, art students rarely become successful artists... and it does suck that college has become more about job placement than human betterment, but I like that a path in art is offered (even if you end up, gasp, in art history or working for a gallery). They say you don't need schools, galleries, collectors, magazines, yadda, yadda, because we have culture. According to them, culture is all we need to nurture visual art. What about visual art nurturing culture? And another point, art school breeds networking, conversations, collaboration... critiques are helpful, reading lists are helpful. Culture doesn't exist in a vacuum. You learn from the people around you... and art school gives you access to so many people who can lend you knowledge and ideas.
It probably didn't help that this event started off with my band's awkward performance... the whole thing had a weird vibe and we promptly decided never to do another event like that again. (Sorry). But on one last note, in their photo essay about the girl in art school, who was from Delaware, but attended MICA (in Maryland)... um, why does "her car" have Texas license plates? Sloppy.
No comments:
Post a Comment