I don't know about art ..... But, I would submit that one aspect of
examining a theory might be understanding its products or results but that
surely leaves the process of arriving at those results unexplored/unknown.
Who did what under what circumstances, under what pressures/expectations
which resulted in this result this time?
Geoff Crealock
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Institutionalized definition
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
The institutional theory describes a process by which artworks are judged.
It does not define the objects themselves nor does it convey a definition
of art. To examine the institutional theory in action is to examine the
results of its process. Also, the process is organic in that the
authorities that engage in the process (making up the "artworld") are
always changing, competing, discussing, etc.
WC
--- On Mon, 9/22/08, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Institutionalized definition
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Monday, September 22, 2008, 8:22 AM
> Cheerskep asks:
>
> "After reading all this talk about institutional
> definitions of art, let me
> ask: Has any eminent institution ever actually set down in
> words such a
> definition?"
>
>
> I did a bit of Googling yesterday, and so far -- the answer
> is no.
>
>
> But the College Art Association comes the closest with:
>
> "The College Art Association supports all
> practitioners and interpreters of
> visual art and culture, including artists and scholars, who
> join together to
> cultivate the ongoing understanding of art as a fundamental
> form of human
> expression."
>
> So I suppose that if an expression is not fundamental - it
> isn't art.
> But how is that determined?
>
> Moving on to their "Core Values" :
>
>
>
> The College Art Association values, supports, and promotes:
>
> * Intellectual and artistic originality and academic
> excellence
> * Ethical and professional standards
> * The exchange and dissemination of diverse artistic
> and scholarly
> viewpoints
> * The careers of professionals in the fields of art,
> art history, and
> visual studies
> * The contribution of artistic culture to society
>
>
> .... and note those two values mentioned in the first
> bullet point:
> "originality" which is appropriate for art -- and
> "excellence" which is
> appropriate for academic work --- but not necessarily vice
> versa.
>
> Other than originality -- there is nothing here about what
> makes something
> worthy of study as art.
>
> Looking at the Art History sites of some specific schools,
> it was interesting
> to find this at the University of Chicago:
>
> "The program seeks to create a forum for the
> exploration of the visual arts as
> manifested in major epochs of European, Near Eastern,
> Asian, and American
> civilizations."
>
> ---- so they're not concerned with the minor epochs -
> or anything done outside
> of civilizations - or anything done in sub-Sahara Africa.
> (not very PC of
> them - but at least they're up-front about it)
>
> More common would probably be this statement from their
> crosstown rival,
> Northwestern University:
>
>
> "The department's commitment to diverse
> perspectives and voices is reflected
> in an extensive schedule of lectures, workshops etc.. The
> production and the
> practice of art history has become a global phenomenon in
> the 20th -21st
> centuries and our department works to redefine and
> transcend traditional
> geographic, chronological... etc"
>
> Far, far more PC -- with the emphasis on diversity and on
> transcending any
> traditional limitations.
>
> But nothing, of course, on what might separate the stuff
> worthy of study (Art)
> from all the other stuff that humans leave behind
> (copolites etc)
>
>
>
> *************
>
> Moving on to the online mission statements of art schools -
> I went down a long
> list of small, traditional ateliers -- and while none of
> them attempted a
> definition of art - they all wanted you to know that there
> is an "old master
> tradition" -- and they are teaching it. Come to think
> of it -- about half of
> them didn't use the word "art" at all in
> their title - and if they did - it
> was usually plural, or modified with a word like
> "representational" or
> "classical" or "fine"
>
> At the other extreme - we would have Saul's institution
> - the "Cleveland
> Institute of Art"
>
>
> No definition of "Art" is given -- but the C.I.A.
> does headline their painting
> department with "Grab your brush, paint, and fancy
> suit. This isn't just art -
> it's the business of art." --- and their sculpture
> department with: "Whether
> it ends up standing, sitting, rotating, billowing,
> reflecting, communicating,
> or breathing fire, it all begins in one place - your
> head."
>
> So I think it's pretty clear that if you want to become
> the next Damien Hurst
> - this is the place to start.
>
> **************
>
>
> I'm doubting that any institution will ever present the
> Institutional
> Definition of Art as its guideline.
>
> It's more like a default position for those who
> don't want to lock themselves
> into any specific tradition - so like any successful
> business - they can go
> with the flow.
>
