Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
DBAE and outsider art....
[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]Robert Sheffey
Tue, 27 May 1997 10:23:07 -0600 (MDT)
I understand Henry's criticism of DBAE in context to "outsider art".
Although most of us feel that the elements and principals are universal and
can be used to judge all art, there is a deeper implication here. That is,
"What was important to the artist?"
In many cultures, the artist's priorities are secret and are to remain
secret. An example would be an african sculpture which houses a secret
sacred object within which is sealed and never allowed to be seen by us.
The "art sculpture" that we would critique by our standards is merely the
object that the artist has used as a ploy to keep hidden the real art.
Henry mentioned that maybe "polish and hardness" were what was of most
importance to the artist. With someone like Howard Finster, is it overall
design or , "does it bring glory to God and display God's message?" When we
look at a work by Howard Finster, is God's message the meaning for the work,
or is it his method and material? It would be interesting to talk with
Finster and compare his perspective to ours.
How many times have we heard the complaints of artists who had read books
about what their art was supposed to "mean" and they totally disagreed
(Georgia O'Keeffee coming to mind as one). With people and cultures who have
had no "formal" training in the arts, can we still use academic methods to
evaluate their work? If not, then how?
I think although each of us can adapt DBAE to our teaching methods and it
can be a wonderful tool to critique all types of art, an interesting
question has been raised.......