The role of education in the art of photography

[Brian K]

Art that is incapable of offending anyone, that is attractive and accessible to everyone, even if such a thing could exist, would likely be so bland and retrograde that we'd be hard pressed to justify paying for it at all

Bland by YOUR aesthetic tastes, which happen to be in a minority. What about those of us who think that a fair amount of the work being praised by the academia of art is pointless and lacks any visible merit? Why are we supposed to swallow whole YOUR vision of art?

If people can't relate to what the most creative and forward looking people are making, then I'd want to deal with it by educating the people rather than dumbing down the art.

Creativity is also a matter of opinion. What you consider creative and forward thinking many others would consider boring or pointless. And as for "educating the people", there are many educated people, and educated in art specifically who don't think the work you champion has value. So why is it that WE need some sort of additional education to be able to understand why the art you like is so valuable? Maybe YOU or those you support should be educated in how to create art that does not require a written explanation to be able to enjoy? And maybe that is the problem. They have been educated to produce art that only those who have undergone a similar "education" can enjoy.

And the fact is, that as our general society has clearly demonstrated with it's pocketbook, it does not seem to value what art has become today.

[cyrus]

The average person today views much of what the art world is pushing as bull shit.

Dogs playing pool, painted on black velvet.
Now, THAT's ART!

[paulr]

Bland by YOUR aesthetic tastes, which happen to be in a minority. What about those of us who think that a fair amount of the work being praised by the academia of art is pointless and lacks any visible merit? Why are we supposed to swallow whole YOUR vision of art?

You're not. Who cares about my vision of art? The vision of art that's being challenged is not mine nor is it a minority vision; it's a whole range of visions held by people who have studied art the most: art historians, critics, curators, and artists. The people who curate the major collections and sit on the grant juries are selected from these pools. As they should be. Who do we want making these decisions ... the people who know the most or the people who know the least?

And the fact is, that as our general society has clearly demonstrated with it's pocketbook, it does not seem to value what art has become today.

I don't know where you get this stuff. If you spend a few minutes researching what's actually been happening on Earth, you'll find that museum attendance is up (in spite of increasing admission fees and broad economic woes). Art prices have been rising at a higher rate than inflation for many decades, with bumps and dips that pretty well follow the broader economy.

You seem to be projecting your own opinions on "the average person" and "our general society," when I really only see it echoed by church groups and a handful of the most vocal conservative legislators.

[Brian K]

You're not. Who cares about my vision of art? The vision of art that's being challenged is not mine nor is it a minority vision; it's a whole range of visions held by people who have studied art the most: art historians, critics, curators, and artists. The people who curate the major collections and sit on the grant juries are selected from these pools. As they should be. Who do we want making these decisions ... the people who know the most or the people who know the least?




I don't know where you get this stuff. If you spend a few minutes researching what's actually been happening on Earth, you'll find that museum attendance is up (in spite of increasing admission fees and broad economic woes). Art prices have been rising at a higher rate than inflation for many decades, with bumps and dips that pretty well follow the broader economy.

You seem to be projecting your own opinions on "the average person" and "our general society," when I really only see it echoed by church groups and a handful of the most vocal conservative legislators.

What's actually happening on Earth and why museum visitation is up is based on an increase in "Staycations", which in the article you posted was stated by the director of the Museum of Contemporary art in Chicago, and a 4% annual increase in international tourism to the US. When you travel on a vacation, do you visit the local museums? I do, I was in Boston 2 weeks ago, one of my stops? The Boston MOMA. Which by the way had lovely shows of Chihuly glass, Impressionists and modernist photography (Ansel, Weston, Sheeler), no Freidlander and certainly no Serrano. Hmm I wonder in order to keep the doors open if museums are appealing to those parochial and bland tastes that you refer to?

And what type of fare is drawing the crowds? A Frank Lloyd Wright retrospective at the Guggenheim, A visiting show from the Louvre, not exactly the new topographics. Also helping some museum's attendance was the opening of long awaited expansions.

And don't attribute the gains that SOME museums have seen as being due to the type of work being discussed here, as gains and losses in attendance occurred at museums showing both contemporary or traditional art. And even the contemporary museums are running more popular and easy to view works. Pandering to those poor dumb masses?

As for art prices rising, how have your sales been? Have you raised your prices lately? Maybe art is selling at the big auction houses for ever increasing rates, but nearly every gallery owner I know, will state that things have not been all that wonderful the last few years. And many long established and very reputable galleries have closed.


As for my "projections" I'm beginning to think that you're blind. Art programs are closing in schools all over America, all that is required to prove that is a quick google search or a visit to your local school. And while that says to you that people have bland tastes it says clearly to me that most people do not value art enough to pay for it. Not even enough to pay for it for their CHILDREN. So why do most communities no longer value art? And please don't blame this on the current economic climate because it's been going on for much more than a decade.

[paulr]

As for my "projections" I'm beginning to think that you're blind. Art programs are closing in schools all over America,

Um. Look upthread and see who first made the point that art programs are closing in schools.

I don't think the explanations are any more complicated than a protracted culture war. I just happen to be on the opposite side of you and Jesse Helms.

And curiously, people are still lining up to see the "New Topographics" work, even though it's ancient history; the original show was in 1975. It was so popular that it was invited to travel to several locations over the next several years including the UK, Tucson, the Eastman House, and Los Angeles. It traveled just last year to SFMOMA, where it drew pretty big crowds, and is scheduled to keep touring. Pretty impressive for such an old war horse.

But it pales in popularity to much of the work you profess to hate most. If you like, I'll take pictures of the crowd outside the Cindy Sherman retrospective next year, and you can tell me if you think contemporary art is struggling for an audience.

[Oren Grad]

I was in Boston 2 weeks ago, one of my stops? The Boston MOMA. Which by the way had lovely shows of Chihuly glass, Impressionists and modernist photography (Ansel, Weston, Sheeler), no Freidlander and certainly no Serrano.

Um, there is no "Boston MOMA". It's the Boston MFA that currently has all those shows, as well as this one -

http://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/conversations

- which you evidently missed.

(That one's coming down in a few days, so for the benefit of later visitors to this thread, the two photographs leading the web page promoting the show are by Friedlander and Eggleston. And in the show itself, there's Cindy Sherman, Tina Barney, Alec Soth, and more.)

[Drew Wiley]

Paul - "small-minded" can also be the idiotic assumption that something is "art" just
because it's offensive. Might be a gimmick to attract ticket sales to certain struggling
venues, but otherwise corneeee. Rotting stinking roadkill on a blank canvas ... that was done in the 1920's. Porno or SM images so sleazy that it would get the FBI on your case if you posted them on the internet - why should the public being paying for that??? Or why should that make it "art". Pretty dingleheaded logic. I have personal reasons for disliking Jesse Helms (he got a relative of mine kicked out of the state dept simply due to ethnic prejudice)... but what's that got to do with it. There's a
difference between being forward-thinking and being airheaded (not implying that's you
personally, but you get the point). Back in the 50's and 60's to be an artiste you had
to take your vows of poverty, unchastity, and civil disobedience ... now I'm watching
members of that genre go pale waiting for liver transplants after all their booze binges and lead and cadmium posioning ... it don't seem so cool anymore. Art and lifestyle are
two different things, and I doubt that being dissipated or demented has really improved anyone's actual talent.

[paulr]

Paul - "small-minded" can also be the idiotic assumption that something is "art" just because it's offensive.

It could be, but who assumes that? Who is giving funding to someone because they find the work offensive?

I just think this is another way of saying "I know porn when I see it." Someone gets offended by art and assumes there is nothing present but offensiveness. Most likely there are people who genuinely admire it, who are not offended by it at all, and this is why it's hanging on the wall.

why should the public being paying for that??? Or why should that make it "art". Pretty dingleheaded logic.

The dingleheaded logic lies in assuming the offensiveness (a subjective judgment held by particular viewers) is what makes something art.

I mean, seriously. Look at how polarized people's views can be. It wasn't that long ago that Jock Stuges got his door kicked down and his whole studio confiscated by the FBI, all on charges of child pornography (which were eventually dropped). Very vocal groups of people here in the U.S. thought he was the devil incarnate, but they were almost all from the bible belt. Meanwhile, in Europe, people assumed he'd cooked up the whole story a publicity stunt, because they couldn't even imagine that anyone would find the work offensive.

[Struan Gray]

I'm self-taught when it comes to the visual arts. I did the usual drawing and painting lessons in junior school, but at secondary level art was an expensive elective topic and I was too busy playing sports and getting my hands dirty in the metal shop. I did study technical drawing in my free time, but that was a driven by a utilitarian fascination with how to represent things.

At the same time I started goofing off from family shopping trips to visit bookshops and art galleries. 'Public funding of the arts' for me meant free access to the city art gallery for children and students. I was surprised at the time that the civic body should be so generous, and will always be grateful. That public museums should be free for everyone to enter seems to be one of the few lastingly good ideas to have come out of Britain in the years I have been an expat.

I lived in Berlin for a while, where arts subsidies were generous and extensive. There were large and enthusiastic audiences for all manner of oddball contemporary arts. You didn't have to like or love something to find it worthwhile or stimulating to experience it, and the lowered barriers to entry truly did nullify most of the usual class and wealth distinctions in the audience. Compared to the way major sports are coddled with direct and indirect subsidies, the money involved was usually piffling.

If I have a problem with formal arts education it is that it encourages a careerist approach to creativity. Project-driven, grant-funded, work tends to be confirmative rather than exploratory, and less likely to surprise either the artist or the audience. One of the many reasons Robert Frank was unique was that his Guggenheim dared to say that he would just wander about and allow the art to emerge. Few would get a fellowship by saying that these days.

[rdenney]

We're lucky to have any art in schools. The whole enterprise is threatened by political interests that see the arts inessential. The result is going to be kids in wealthy districts and private schools getting arts education while no one else does.

Be careful about blaming political interests. If the majority agree with the politicians on this issue, which I think is unfortunately likely, then the case for art education (and really more than just education) hasn't yet been made. That's an uphill road, for sure. But the politicians may actually be representing the majority of their constituents' views on the topic. It's more difficult than 300 years ago when patricians separated themselves from the masses by being interested in and supporting the arts, and the only thing an artist had to do was capture the support of a wealthy patron or the king's court (alternative: starvation or worse).

Rick "who has discussed this at length in the context of music, too" Denney