Half - term of the first term in the second year of my study has just approached. I found myself enjoying my time in the college much more than I could initially imagine, but this wouldn’t be possible without great people I met.
The main good points of study art in an institution (especially when you’re not quite independent financially) is that you’re being supplied with a free studio space, free tuitions (these depend on the country and a type of the institution), free workshops and an easy access to a very useful equipment (cameras, projectors, books etc.). There is obviously another issue too complex to be converted economically - you’re surrounded by passionates, both students and “masters”, who are there at a length of your arm each time you need a talk, an advise or a feedback.
And there are arguments contra, which tend to be equally powerful. Unless you consider yourself a psychologically strong person, comparatively sure why are you doing, what you’re doing, also- unless you’re able to reflect critically on your environment I wouldn’t recommend studying fine art in a structured manner.
First of all, you have to function within an educational program designed for majority - 18-years old students (in a case of a public college) and to fight its great potential to infantilise anyone who doesn’t need to be watched and disciplined for the most of the time just to develop properly. On the other hand it imposes a system of dividing your time (terms, time spent in studio, at lectures etc.) and marking, which can be pretty distracting and/or confusing (because we’re all humans, we want to perform for 80%, not for 40% - but does 80% make you a better artist?).
There’re tutorials and seminars where you’re expected to more or less make your teachers happy by a clear, eloquent and ambitious presentation of your progress and answering all the questions, no matter how pointless they may sound. If you’re a young, unexperienced and untrained in a logical argumentation or if you’re an introvert feeling extremely uncomfortably in being publicly exposed in that particular way, you’re in a vulnerable situation.
I remember a very quiet girl who’s no longer with us, most probably because the system I study in promotes, first of all, outgoing and intellectually able individuals which doesn’t necessary translate into promoting those truly talented and aware of what that’s really mean to study art.
So - what that’s actually mean “to study art”? I’m asking myself and all of you there, studying art each day in institutions, on your own, purely for hobby, just for fun?
I still smile recalling my chat with a teacher, a painter:
- What’s the meaning you want to convey? - he asked looking at my set of steel tubes and glass structures.
- I’m not sure if there’s any meaning I would like to convey.
- But there must be something you want to communicate.
- Do I have to communicate anything?
- You have to make your viewers aware of your intentions. You have to be responsible for the message you convey.
- What do you mean “to be responsible”?
- I mean - he said loosing his patience a little bit - that your art always tells a story. And that you are a teller. Do you know your story well enough?
- But, if I mean my painting to communicate only itself - a painting for painting…Do I have to generate other meanings just for the sake of my viewers?
- An art for art’s sake - there’s no such thing. Art happens between you, your work and those who react to it…Just look - I see your set as a cold, austere and beautiful place. If I call dozens of people I’m sure their reaction will be identical.
- But how do you know that I consciously inscribed that meaning…I just found the pieces and I liked them so I put them together…- I answered quite frankly.
We continued in that fashion until he resigned and promised to return once I will be ready “to communicate” something.
I recall that conversation simply because it made me think a lot about my study and art in general. Especially, the imperative of “communicating something” and “being responsible” for the meaning(s) my art could generate in people.
I used to work quite intuitively and even automatically, just trusting my creative potential and not caring about the outcome until the very end.
So, does “studying art” mean learning communicational and social skills which would transform me into an expert in “meanings”and reception of my work?
Or - is it simply a training in techniques and strategies for producing “readable” art-products? You may say - studying art can be partially both… But what beyond this? Or - are those aspects really that important?
Tags: Studying Art
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://rourkevisualart.com/wordpress/2007/10/27/studying-art-diary-1/trackback/
30 October 2007 at 11:35 AM
Incompetent
The notion of art for art’s sake was a revolt against the doctrine of critics like Ruskin who felt that art must convey a type of message or moral purpose. Personally I feel unless you expressly communicate the intent, you can be sure people will create the story for themselves anyway. Look at all those abstract pieces in which people actively search for recognizable forms and shapes.
I think studying art is necessary for technical ability, but the part beyond that is what separates the craftsmen from the masters like Rembrandt. Few of us will reach that level, but without proficiency, you can be sure you’re out of the running to begin with.
Or you can focus on marketing, like Hirst. Rembrandt died poor.
31 October 2007 at 5:40 AM
Katarzyna
Incompetent
The notion under discussion - “art for art’s sake” has got a great importance for me because I think it touches the most basic question of “what’s art?”. And depending on how people (an individual, a particular influential group) understand “what’s art” they also react to the notion and make their minds that art for art’s sake is either an utopia or a snobistic empty phrase or only possible purpose of “true” art. For me, there’s a great tempting power in what Oscar Wilde said:
“A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist.”
31 October 2007 at 11:14 AM
Sixtyminuteartist
Katarzyna, I have just started tuning into your blog—and really like it. I especially liked you piece on color and color mixing—and want to link to in through my blog. Hope you don’t mind.
On you point about art and meaning, my perspective would be that your professor is pushing you a bit to become a bit more proactive in your artistic process. I had the same problem for many years, making art by painting things that appealed to me and leaving it there. I think this is a valid approach. However, what happens as you become more skilled is that you discover you can paint just about anything you want. At which point, the questions change to—how to paint and what to paint. If you can paint any style and anything—I think the mature artist eventually hits a crisis where he either gives up painting (since he has met his/her goal of “being able to paint”) or moves on to the next question—which is how to manipulate the viewer to create a particular premeditated sensation. I don’t think this is the same as being a craftsman—it is in fact at the root of artistic process. One could argue the opposite, that the fullly skilled painter who simply continues to paint objects is the amusing craftsman Wilde talks about. So, I think it is okay for now to proceed with the premise that “I paint becuase I like what I am painting”—but I think you will eventually get bored as your skill increases—and you will need to answer your professor’s questions in your own personal way. You do not seem to me to be the type that will continue to paint for art’s sake—as you have too much talent. But, perhaps you will simply stop when you figure out how to paint. Only time will tell.
Anyway, all the best. Let me know if you want to trade links. Jerry (sixty minute artist)
31 October 2007 at 2:35 PM
Katarzyna
I’m grateful for this comment but it’s David, not me who should be rightly complimented. And I’m sure he’s glad too.
This is David’s blog, he is the author of the piece on color and color mixing you’re mentioning about, and of the rest (99%) of the posts. I’m the contributor to this site and I’ve just started this adventure. Anyway, when I develop my own blog I will let you know.
I don’t perceive making art for art’s sake as the lower, less advanced or less thoughtful process - actually, the opposite - once an artist stops to make art for his tutors, for studies (for learning how to use techniques, materials), for his own ambitions, for money, for public enjoyment or scandal or commission - he can focus on his work as on something what has got a sense and reason in itself, what’s a pure expression of his unique temperament and nothing else. (And it doesn’t matter if he can or cannot explain his own work. Artist is not a scholar, not an art critic. Not first of all, at least. That’s why I rejected to answer my teacher’s questions.)
Some artists gravitate within only one, two levels (they make art only for money or only for scandal) throughout their whole career. Some are able to remain “difficult” in reception and unpopular (opposition to pop-ular artist) just because they respect their works as they appear, without “pro publica bono” adjustments. That’s when art exists for its own sake.
3 November 2007 at 9:19 AM
Bill Sharp
Katarzyna
I enjoyed reading your thoughts. Although I think that the discussion of “what is art” is a bit of a quagmire, I related to what you said about wanting to work intuitively. I agree, if I read you correctly, that “trusting your creative potential” is discouraged in schools. I, not being as strong as you, spent quite a lot of energy doubting myself while in school because I couldn’t verbalize my intentions as clearly as others.
I’m not sure if you’re really asking for answers to “why study art?” but I don’t think it’s a useful question. It seems like one could waste a lot of time on that instead of moving ahead with the study.
Thanks for sharing your this. I also really appreciated the Oscar Wilde quote. I look forward to reading more from you and David.
3 November 2007 at 9:53 AM
Katarzyna
Bill
Thanks. I’m not asking”why study art?” but “what does it mean to study art?”. In other words - I’m not concerned about the rationale but about meaning or an individual interpretation of the process (“studying art” process). I’m interested how other artists and students define “studying” art . And I mean the broad sense of the word “studying” - not only being an actual student in the college, but anyone who researches, learns new things etc. Professionals too, if they are insightful enough, study art throughout their life. So - are you still studying art? If yes, what does it mean in your case - reading blogs, books maybe creating your own, is it experimenting with a new technique or just looking for a new inspiration to reinvent yourself? I’m also asking partially rhetorical questions at the end of my post. But I have a hope that somebody will answer them.