> The old woman's comment was that we are all artists, but in
> many "western" cultures, the skills have been "educated" out of
> necessarily by the school art programs, but by society as a
A wise woman. Still, I'd say that the artworld in general retains
greater responsibility for dropping the ball. That the larger
bought in and supported this is another issue. The only way back,
if anyone wants to recover what the west has lost, (if anyone
that what was lost was valuable) begins with art education.
People don't want to consciously do trivial things. Sure they do
but who starts out wanting to do an amateruish job of it and with
acceptance that they will, no doubt, remain amateurs. Very few;
born hobbyists maybe. I could easily be in error here but it
that's what is going on.
Historically people have learned the arts in two ways: the modern
as consumers and "enlightened cherishers" who learn the
and social skills of distinguishing quality goods and the more
way, as practitioners who, in the processes of making and using
improving skill, learn as technologists the hows and whys of
good and servicable product and look at the work of the master
not to be entertained and blown away but searching for clues and
unknown tricks. Maybe they eventually find and accept their
limitations, but they get past the gate without an inherent
between themselves and masters of the art.
Another element (the part where society comes into play) that has
played a part in this loss of access has been the choice to
greater value to the decorative artifact over the artifact of
This seems, on the surface, pretty obvious and even natural.
MAYBE it is and maybe not. Its a "wannabe" phenomena and
begins I think with more extreme examples of social
When a social class has so much surplus wealth that they can
it on thinks meant primarily for sensual enjoyment it's not too
that people aspire to that class and to the opportunity to
marks of extravagance and aristocracy.
There are probably a hundred things that have contributed to the
we find ourselves in today, where it can be noted that the
practice of art
has been "educated out of us." Now it's vastly easier to teach
of our students to be better consumers of art and the
entertainment which can be found in the gallery and museum. At
least it is
easier to follow that path than it is to teach our students not
their abilities in the arts--in visual culture.
> It makes me wonder, though, how much budding artistic talent we
> erecting standards of "good" and "bad" art?
AMEN! A rhetorical question with a good point! Also, what happens
-disqualify- art? --You know, the "Oh that's not real art!"
comments. and the
"Is it art?" questions. Standards ARE useful. I won't argue about
that. But they
are MORE useful when we eschew the binary extremes and focus on
continuum between the extremes. "In THIS context, TO WHAT EXTENT
degree does this work or this technique succeed in meeting such
and such criteria."
"Good art / bad art" and "art / not art" are simply not the
issues any more.
> As the Taoist Lao Tzu said, "We do not recognize Beauty unless
> recognize Ugliness."
Have you ever tried to cut the negative pole off of a bar magnet?
It can't be done.
the smallest particle still exhibits the +/- polarity. This is a
material example but
it would be an error to see it as other than a metaphor for our
need to assign
+ and - values in the world. But I think that the cases are much
the same.It is a
field/ground relationship in which one cannot perceive the one
without the other.
It is only wishful and even magical thinking to believe the we
can dispense with
or overcome the negative or the "dark side." Still there is a
tradition in the west that struggles to find the path or
methodology to accomplish this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 05 2000 - 09:36:09 PDT