From: Christopher Lovegnuth (chrisml@pacbell.net)
Date: 10/17/01-08:13:08 PM Z
I think that there was some misunderstanding from my last post so let me
clarify some ideas. First off with the Disney story, the whole point is that
this student sitting in an academic environment did not support herself as
to why Disney was an influence on her work. She walked in to that class with
the preconception that people there were going to put down this work and so
she didn't defend or explain why it influenced her personally. She just
said, "because" and then went off on a rant about how we as a class had put
ourselves above all this "common art". You cannot put yourself in an
academic environment and not support your ideas. If she had walked in to
that class and supported her thoughts (which I might add was the entire
reason for the lesson) as to why Disney influenced her work then there is no
issue. You could easily replace the Disney book with a rock and if you
support you reasoning it's fine.
Now here is my question, what does one intend to get out of a MFA or BFA
program? I personally believe one doesn't go to school to learn technique
especially at the graduate level. That can be done in workshops and in fact
you will learn way more about a certain technique in a workshop then you
could ever do in a university setting. I don't know about you but there
seems to be a discrepancy as to what people expect out of a photography
program and what is expected in other disciplines. For some reason people
expect to learn technique in a photo program. I have yet to take a non-photo
class that focuses on technique except for maybe intro to glassblowing. In
intro to drawing for example, the instructor doesn't sit there showing you
how to hold your pencil at different angles to achieve a desired look. The
emphasis is on subject matter, form, the student's perceptions and ideas.
This of course has to be supported by theory and art history, etc. Yet when
I hear what people expect out of a photo program, they want to know what
techniques will be taught. If the program has alt process, etc. It almost
seems like a second thought as to the subject matter, theory, history.
My whole point to this rant is that it seems like some are too worried and
conflicted with present instructors in academia. Some also assume that this
is reflective as a whole on photo art academia, which leads me to believe
that people will have issues no matter where they go. In an MFA program the
student should already be quite settled in to their ideas of what art means
to him or her. They should also have technique down. The instructors are not
there to create a neutral environment where everyone's ideas, presentations
and work are equal and beneficial to the world. Think about the most
fundamental part of each studio art class, the critique (as defined as: The
art of criticism). Instructors are there to create an environment where a
student can nurture and grow ideas and place them in context to a set
knowledge base. Hopefully the student will learn and progress from that
experience and their work will be more focus and relevant to current trends
and thoughts in art, etc. Of course I am over simplifying this whole
process, many books can be written on this subject.
Finally I'm done! You have to really ask yourself why you want a MFA program
and to a lesser extent a BFA. From what some have written here in posts it
seems that people might be in conflict with the academic community and if
this is the case, stay true to yourself and do work that matters to you and
forget about what academy thinks. That's how impressionism started!
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:14 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: artists in academia; WTC in art; insufficient irony?
Another opinion(s):
Having been to a range of schools over 50 years (from Northwestern
to Chicago to Cooper to Pratt), I can attest that most of what I
learned I taught myself, but a supportive teacher at a shaky junction was
invaluable.
Having taught at even more schools, I've found teaching part-time sublime,
teaching for a living/fulltime would be deadly, or so I imagine, as I've
never done it.
BUT, today we have a number of EXCELLENT texts on alt-photo, not to
mention this list -- in my experience & from hearsay, VERY FEW teachers of
the processes know as much technically as you'll find in most of those
chapters. As is still unfortunately often the case (if not the rule),
schools see a demand for "alt" courses & press their regular teachers into
service, many never having done the processes themselves, or maybe a
platinum workshop -- it's all the same to administration. (They may have
to teach drawing, digital and graphic design, too, in small schools.)
Of course there is no "alternative photography" any more than there is "a"
photography, or for that matter an "art." Go where there are SMART
STUDENTS, preferably an art school, or one with a strong art department.
The use of an MFA program is the COHORT, the classmates and teachers with
whom you will bond and network. (Or as Harold Rosenberg said, "By the time
there's a bandwagon it's too late to jump on it.") Of course there are
those who won't/can't learn from a book, but want to be fed in person --
fortunately, so there are some jobs for MFAs. (A school that won't let
teachers use the facilities must be VERY good in other respects, because
otherwise I can't imagine how it would keep faculty -- or expect them to
be sharp. I would also imagine that seeing their teachers actually at work
would inspire students.)
PS. I have shot current NYC imagery & have WTC, but feel need to let it
"ripen" before printing (my Times Square photos, now in work, are 15-20
years old. I can see them better -- maybe in time they get to be more like
flowers ?). A genius might avoid the obvious in using these themes right
now, but .... genius writes its own rules anyway.
PPS. Meanwhile, there is, I understand, a VERY moving and interesting show
at 116 Prince St, Soho -- the gods willing I'll get there. First
professional photogs, then everybody, brought in their shots of the event,
which were scanned and printed out digitally, everything is hung and sold
for $25, printed on the spot, proceeds to victim's fund. One newspaper
report mentioned photo of beefy man's arm with tattoo of WTC and
teardrops.
PPPS. Whoever dismisses *Disney* as theme, source, reference for
contemporary art must read nothing but Farmer's Almanac. Disney themed art
is all over the most prestigious art publications, such as Artforum, the
biennials, the auctions, almost to the point of cliche. Oh maybe that's
why the teacher objected -- too obvious?
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/02/01-08:55:27 AM Z CST