From: shannon stoney (sstoney@pdq.net)
Date: 10/19/01-12:02:08 PM Z
Bill, your description of the academic art scene as inbred and
insular strikes me as exactly on the mark, although I am sort of an
outsider observer of it really and am only beginning to understand
it. But I also look at photography outside of the academic scene,
and I find that what is considered "good" in the wide world is often
very different from what academic types like. One difference for
example is that the prints that are shown and sold in galleries are
very well crafted, and are often very pleasurable to look at,
beautiful as well as thought-provoking, but frequently "merely"
beautiful; whereas academic work around here is almost always some
sort of critique of the media or pop culture that doesnt' go much
beyond appropriating imagery from pop culture, and it is often not
very well crafted.
Being in Austin, do you know anything about the MFA program at the
University of Texas there?
--shannon
>
>
>One of the central issues in MFA education today is that most graduate
>instruction is being handled by artists who are now second, and sometimes
>third, generation MFA graduates. It is the equivalent of genetic inbreeding
>applied to art instruction.
>
>The majority of academic artists compete almost solely among themselves. They
>compete for teaching positions, for rank and tenure, for budget, space and
>resources, for wall space in exhibitions, for awards and recognition within a
>fairly restricted academic environment and it's environs. They have their own
>cultivated networks, their own vocabulary and a very refined understanding of
>how one accomplishment in their context relates to any other. Some are very
>talented and committed artists, others are talented and committed competitors.
>
>This has to affect the quality of their teaching. In fact, at many of the
>larger state institutions promotion and tenure is heavily weighted towards
>professional growth (exhibitions, reviews, publication) and teaching eff
>ectiveness is a secondary consideration. Because only a very small number of
>artists can exhibit or publish in the commercial art market/museum circuit,
>the vast majority of what accounts for professional growth happens within
>university galleries or smaller, local spaces.
>
>The entire system is amazingly insular.
>
>The best academic artists, in my opinion, resist the temptation to define
>themselves solely in that context. Perhaps their view of what art is, and
>what is can be, is more broadly defined. Perhaps they have succeeded in
>plugging into the larger market and enjoy a deeper relationship with
>non-academics in the art world. Or perhaps they love the teaching process and
>embrace their time with students instead of "managing" it around their
>careers.
>
>If you had the opportunity to look around, and the means to attend the school
>of your choice (grades, portfolio, money, time), you could find excellent
>artists who are also excellent teachers. There is no telling what their view
>on craftsmanship might be, but I'd bet the farm that it is a well considered
>and appropriate conclusion.
>
>By the way, any critique that lasts longer than 45 minutes to an hour (with
>rare exception) is misguided.
>
>Bill Kennedy
>Austin, Texas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/02/01-08:55:27 AM Z CST