More Active Posts
Front Page
Judge not (art, lest your art be judged)
 |
 5 Comments |
Why teach taste? Painter and art professor Laurie Fendrich says some of her readers wonder why she professes to teach, and to be able to teach, taste.
Why are college art professors so afraid to convey to their students that they have superior taste?, and, Why are they afraid to teach that taste to their students?
This is a good question in a world where taste might not exist. She says it has something to do with the same kind of moral relativism she sees in university types.
This same relativism clearly shows up in people who insist that matters of aesthetics boil down to preferences. It shows up in university professors when they say they are there simply to “make it clear to…students that the job of an art historian is not to judge whether art is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ (i.e., notions of our own taste are not what matters), but to try to understand art within the context in which it was produced.”
Of course, Fendrich doesn’t seem to have a problem with moral relativism (read the essay), although she is offended by aesthetic relativism. Of course, God doesn’t provide as many universal imperatives about aesthetic behavior as he does about moral behavior, which means it’s even more difficult to judge, even if the implications are less dire. Nevertheless, she makes a good point. When art professors teach the absolute relativity of aesthetic tastes, then “No wonder so many students fall asleep in art history classes!” Nothing is more caffeinating than a professor who says you’re wrong.
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: art, education |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
Don’t blame racism
In many regards, this professor is correct. While I disagree with the moral relativism, art is about beauty and beauty is not always just in the eye of the beholder. Yes, there are some things that some may say is beautiful and some not, but there is such a thing as ugly art.
Thanks for the post
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is why there is old adn wise saying that states this clearly.
Ugliness is also in the eye of the beholder but people do not have an nold wise saying about this.
There is definitely merit in being able to determine the depth of a piece and interpret it. If there is any universal value to craftsmanship, then there is at least one aesthetic quality that is not relative.
Academics these days is rooted in narcissism: instead of studying what is good and learning why the rest of it (art, literature, whatever) does not qualify as good art, we do this:
Professors get to teach whatever they wish (usually obscure authors); students get to write papers and do projects on what they want to (frequently something weird–just for grins), and then we call that art, just so we can do what pleases us. (Is that not the essence of narcissism?)
Of course, restrictions on originality in dissertations–that they have to be so completely unique–binds peoples’ hands a little and some feel they have to look at authors who might never have seen the light of day had someone not needed something NEW for his dissertation.
Concerning “being a judge over art”. What does this mean? It is somewhat like “being a judge over food”. One person says, “Chocolate cake is bad because it’s dark and sweet and I like things light and tart”. Another person says, “Shrimp are ugly and high in cholesterol and shouldn’t be considered a food”. So, is judging art just a matter of taste like when judging food? Just as food is somewhat judged based on personal tastes and that is often influenced by the culture that we live in, art is also personal and cultural. Art, like food has many categories, for example American Impressionism circa 1900 and Chinese chocolate cake circa 2000. With these parameters I think we can find art and food experts who can properly judge what is “good and not good” in both these examples. However if we try to judge American Impressionism against all other art genres or Chinese chocolate cake with all other cakes, now we have problem.
It seems to me that the arts have certain elements that are common among all the disciplines. For example, we appreciate harmony in both music and painting. But do we appreciate a painting when it doesn’t have an obvious subject matter? We certainly do in music. Music without lyrics is somewhat void of subject and yet most folks can appreciate a “tune without words”. About 100 years ago it seems that not many people (in the art world) could appreciate a painting unless it had an easily recognizable subject and in some circles, “art was not art”, unless it was either a traditional landscape, still-life or a portrait of someone they knew and not only that, but the subject (person) needed to appear more beautiful than they really were (less wrinkles, nicer clothes, less gray, etc.). Now, I don’t criticize such art, I enjoy doing portraits and have studied the works and ideas of many great portrait artists. The point I want to explore it that pure abstract art, much like music without words, is a valid form of art, not just art before 1900. If we judge abstract art because we don’t recognize a subject we are somewhat like a person who says chocolate cake is bad because it is not green and crisp. Now a salad and a cake are both food but they are very different and should be judged so.
I live in China and I enjoyed both the food and the art of China. When my friends come to visit from other countries, sometimes they try to judge the local food and art based on the standards of their culture and of course this is normal, we all do it, but I think we are comparing “apples with oranges”, right? In China often you will see abstract works of art based on Chinese characters which is an old form of abstract art and many times no one can recognize what the characters are, only the “beauty” of the brush stroke and the way the ink bleeds into the paper. When someone new comes to this kind of art they may be tempted to criticize what they don’t understand. I think when one looks at an artwork it is natural to try to “see something”, something that you can recognize, something that reminds you of something you have seen in nature. People who examine nature carefully see many abstract wonders. Maybe this is one of the reasons why Fibonacci loved math so much. Maybe Durer, Mondrian and Fibonacci had more in common than we realize. So we look at something that doesn’t make sense and we try to make sense of it. Like, trying to make sense of a Jackson Pollock painting, is it possible? I don’t know, but I must be slow to typecast him: “Jack the Dripper”. I am willing to look a little deeper.
I enjoy watching the waves form abstract patterns in the sand near the rugged rocks of the Yellow Sea, near my home in China. Occasionally these patterns remind me of other forms in nature. I find these patterns beautiful even when they remind me of nothing. Or, maybe I shouldn’t say “nothing”, because “all nature cries out”, all nature shows “His fingerprints”. I am constantly reminded of who God is by observing what He has created. And what is abstract anyway? Is it a close-up photo of a baby’s eye? Is it a Hubble telescope image of a galaxy? Is it microscopic view of a red blood cell? Is it Chinese characters written large and bold? Maybe it’s abstract only because I don’t recognize it or understand it?
So if someone drops a can a paint accidentally from a ladder to a cloth below, should we called it art? How about, if a gorilla drags a brush and looking at it just right you can see the face of Mona Lisa? Or, imagine a very gifted person studies and develops their skills and paints an exact image of photograph that someone else took of Bill Clinton. It that art? What if someone, even though not very skilled in art, discovers a new way of seeing and expressing deep theological ideas through using digital paint and computer generated multimedia. Is it art? What if someone gathers aesthetic ideas from various cultures throughout history and uses those ideas to express biblical truth. What if a child with learning disabilities drew pictures in a way that no one had seen before. Could it be art?
Some of the early abstract artists felt that we had explored almost completely the realm of representational art and so modern man must move on. I don’t think so. We have not even touched its surface. Artists that desire to work with subjects that can be recognized should continue to do so. Much new creative work will continue in this realm for at least till the Lord returns, I suppose. But how about those that are speaking in an art language that is often unknown, should they stop lest “some think they are drunk”? No, but in both cases we should base our works of art out of His influence. As an artist and a follower of Christ we have great freedom but let’s desire and seek His guidance and not just imitate the world or even imitate a tradition of art that neither the scriptures portray nor does the Spirit impart.
When considering the arts, representational or abstract, symbolic or literal, rhyme or no rhyme, lyrical or not, shocking or traditional, is not the question.
artsCounterPoint.com