I was reading the September issue of Art in America and found the Letters section particularly interesting. The discussion revolved around what artists felt they had not learned in art school and why. Normally I don't get past the first few sentences of any article in Art in America, primarily because it seems geared to the East Coast Art Establishment, which feels a bit remote from what I experience in my artistic environment. However, I am always willing to listen to other people complain, if only to get a dose of my own medicine.
There were several opinions about what art schools did teach - how to survive and prosper within the group critique -- and what they didn't teach - how to survive and prosper in the real art world, and I would encourage those of you interested in following the discussion to read the full text of the letters, as well as the original article (I'm looking for my copy) and the various books in the marketplace aimed at filling in the gaps. Two points I found particularly interesting were these: that art schools failed to teach students how to be creative enough to find their personal vision, and that they also failed to teach any realistic business skills. To quote Melany Terranova, of Scottsdale : "And yet many skills, in addition to art skills, are needed to succeed in the arts. These include social skills, computer skills, photography skills, writing skills, marketing skills, negotiating skills and financial skills." Ms. Terranova goes on to describe one of the most enlightening classes she ever attended, where contemporary artists such as Louise Nevelson answered questions: "At the end of the series, my conclusion was that it was the art, be it good art or bad art, coupled with good marketing that made the career!"
My first observation was that students coming from top rated art schools were lamenting that they were taught the "institutional critique" and found themselves caught up in the art historical argument over what should come after post modernism, without seeing how they could operate outside of the established postmodern ideology. Other students described it as a failure to teach creative thinking and the ability to develop a personal vision. As I missed reading the original article that inspired this debate, I can only react to what I read in the text of these letters, but it seems to me that art schools -- whether well-known or the kind in state universities like the one I attended -- can only teach a student theory, basic craftsmanship, and vocabulary. The real art making takes place outside of the classroom, and the careers can represent as many successes or failures as there are artists.
My second observation was that -- only from the nature of the letters, without drawing any overarching conclusions here -- that academics have a completely different idea of what artists should be doing than what artists actually do when caught up in the creative process, and this disconnect is at the root of a lot of the "career" problems.
For example, I have several books on writing the artist statement. In nearly all of them, authors advise describing how your work fits within art historical parameters, how you were influenced by what came before you and how you are either pushing a current art history theory forward or reacting against it. I don't know about you, but when I am in my creative zone the last thing I'm thinking about is how I might be making a response to the psycho-social reactionary influences of urban tensions upon the expressionist-influenced theories of the 60's and 70's that declared painting dead. That's a discussion I save for a few good friends and a really great bottle of Da Vinci Toscana Chianti.
The minute I find myself pondering how my inspiration has to fit into an art history textbook, I come up against resistance, an unwillingness to take the kind of artistic risks that are vital to finding one's personal vision. The work turns into a pale, over-worked version of two decades ago, or worse, totally boring and feeding into the self-doubts that arise whenever I deviate from what I know to be my own artistic truth. So I can't worry about whether my poured paintings relate more to color field, Los Angeles "Look", Conceptual or Process Art. They are what they are. Tomorrow, maybe they'll be something different. My creative vision has grown out of my ability to think and conceptualize and explore outside of the academic box and to go where the paint takes me. Somebody else can give it a label.
I am thrilled that this piece recently sold for $3000. I'm back in the studio pushing the new boundaries to see what else I can create.
