From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/23/02-02:07:32 PM Z
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Christopher Lovenguth wrote:
> Of course many people on this list support the book "Why Art Cannot Be
> Taught: A Handbook for Art Students" by James Elkins, which I believe
> actually explains why art CAN be taught. If you look over Elkins over
> simplifications and generalizations of how faculty interact with students,
> you do see and interesting take on art and academia and what that means to
> students and teachers alike and how communication could be improved. -Chris
I'm reminded of a panel discussion at Artists Talk on Art , December 15,
1978. We reprinted Pat Mainardi's write-up of the event in "Mutiny," which
is why I have it at hand. The panel was titled "Art Education: Is it
Either?" Meaning, in case that's too subtle, is it either art *or*
education. The verdict was split.
We titled Pat's essay, "Selfish Elitist Monsters vs.Custodians," which
should give an idea of the (lively!) discussion. However, I think that
question as asked by Jack's student, if there is any answer at all (more,
that is, than an answer to "what is love?" or "what is art?"), has got to
be tied to the institution... what pleases in one would be cause for
dismissal in another.
My (editor's) post-script to Pat's essay, BTW, began with a comment from
the audience: "It was a pleasure to listen to such articulate people after
spending so much time among art educators."
My own comments included, "it's probably safe to say that once an art mode
has become so thoroughly formulated as to be transmitable through the
devices of academe, it is more or less finished as art currency....
Certainly what is going to be taught in art school in the year 1979 won't
in itself be much use to the next generation, although it brings the
salary, perquisites and satisfactions of teaching to this generation....
The benefit of art school, its real function for the future artist, is not
so much educational as social.... Art Education is the initiation into a
looseknit, far-flung mystical coterie, or family, of artists..."
etc. etc.
Meanwhile, I pretty much agree with what both Chris and Michael are
saying, except to date I haven't read the can't-teach-art book (which I
intend to do as soon as the crisis requiring System 9 book is over) but I
have read, or tried to read, the Terry Barrett book. That that one has
gotten so much approval suggests to me that no one has read it either. I
found everything in it so obvious, self-evident and ordinary -- at *best*
common sense ..... it verged on parody.
cheers,
Judy
> > >From: Jack Fulton <jefulton1@attbi.com>
> >Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> >To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> >Subject: Book(s) query
> >Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:57:20 -0700
> >
> >Dear Group:
> > A student asked me yesterday if I knew of a book, or books, on teaching
> >in
> >an art school or environment. Gee, good question . . so I am asking you.
> > They elaborated upon the question by saying, "You know, what is a student
> >supposed to learn? What is a teacher supposed to teach? What is expected of
> >the student in terms of their knowledge and practice?"
> >I thought of 'Criticizing Photographs' by Terry Barret but was stymied.
> >Yes,
> >we know of the heuristic and/or empirical plan/method and I could go on and
> >elaborate regarding what I know, understand and feel. However, the question
> >remains asking are there books on the subject.
> > Thanks for any replies.
> > Jack Fulton
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access.
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:27 PM Z CST