I had a cousin who was in junior collage when i was in high school in the late 40's, always trying to teach me what the essence of things meant.which was difficult to understand for a while, then later in art school I had a sculpture teacher who stressed the learning of anatomy of the human body and every thing under the Sun. but always used to warn us not to become a slaves to them. "Design with it' were his constant words. He felt he had learned that too late in his life and founded it impossible to change.
So I do agree that art taught by a philosopher / poet / critic / historian or even a music composer would add much to the quality of every artist. AB ________________________________ From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:23 AM Subject: Re: experience and resonance I reject the idea that one has to be a painter to critique or fully experience and 'understand' a painting. First, every artist differs from all others. Whenever one painter looks at another's painting (or even his or her own painting), the work is experienced from a critical distance, from the neutral corner, as it were. I've seen thousands and thousands of paintings and never felt that I had a better sense of their expressive quality simply because I am a painter. That does bring up the difficult question about who should teach painting. For the technical process, yes, a painter might be best. But for the real task of educating a painter as an artist, I'm not sure if a philosopher, poet, critic, scientist or historian might not be better. (I withhold admitting social scientists because of a personal and likely wrong bias). I agree that it's not necessary to know much about the artist in experiencing work. Such information may be helpful in dealing with many aspects of the artist's life and art history but are not integral to the artness of the work, the so-called a.e. (And that's why art history is not about aesthetics or the a.e.) The works contains nothing at all except its features just as a that a word contains no meaning in itself. The painting becomes the container that is filled up with the beholder's own sensations and narratives, the meaningful contexts one brings to it. I say that even though I have worked closely with art historians who take the psycho-biographical approach (M. Gedo, etc.) in a critique of art. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, March 20, 2012 8:47:31 AM Subject: Re: experience and resonance Two thoughts on John's interesting posting below. 1) I wonder (and that's all: I can't "know") if an experienced observer, using ostensible evidence in a work, can't imagine a unveracious history. "I could tell at once this was by an older artist.") I once encountered a book of "life" drawings by Picasso. It was accompanied by a scholar's judgment that when Picasso did these drawings he was "the best draughtsman alive". The scholar remarked on the "relaxed maturity" of the works. In fact the drawings were from the 1890s, when Picasso was still in his teens. (It felt distantly comparable to chess experts' responses to the early games of Bobby Fischer. That he could produce games of such "maturity" at such a young age seemed almost inconceivable.) 2) When John says, "So that raises the question: do you HAVE to be a painter in order to appreciate works like this? I say no, but you do have to be experienced as a critic..." I realize how different the notion John has in mind when he uses the word 'appreciate' probably is from my notion. Language constantly wields its influence on our notions. I mentioned how language, because "words" and phrases are discrete and stable, tend to make us discrete and stabilize (and reify) what the words are thought to "refer to". We also are slow to realize that OUR notion is never "THE" notion. Writers -- young and old -- seem blithe to me when they are obviously assuming that, as they use a word, everyone who reads it will be entertaining the same notion as the writers do. A while back I listed several dozen words in philosophy-of-language discussion that occasion a blizzard of varying notions that many of those philosophers seem unaware of. (This assertion of mine goes back to my position that no words "have a meaning". They occasion notions in the auditors' minds, and we might agree to call those notions "the meanings FOR THEM", but they are never "THE" "meaning", because there is no such entity.) I might -- and do -- say I can "appreciate" certain verbal works while having no info whatever about the author. But clearly I have a different idea of appreciation from John's. (I once had a friend who told of using 'appreciate' in a telling way. A third party had used several of my friend's sentences in a piece the third party was writing. When the unattributed borrowing came to light, the third party said, "I hope you appreciate what I was doing -- paying homage to you that way." My friend responded, "Oh, don't worry, I APPRECIATED what you were doing all right.") In a message dated 3/20/12 2:19:10 AM, [email protected] writes: > William's referring to his professional career in his reply to my > regrettable post reminded me of something that's been occupying me > lately. I'll introduce it Joseph Berg style by quoting this exchange > between the painters Joe Fyfe (b. 1952) and Josh Blackwell (b. 1972): > > JB: "[Your works] are quite elegant in the economy of the > picture-making itself. Because of that, there might be a perception > that they dont feel finished because they dont feel as if they were > hard-won." > > JF: "[T]heres a big difference between my paintings and those by > artists 20 or 25 years younger. Ive spent 20 years or so making all > kinds of paintings. I was a figurative painter. I labored over > paintings for months on end (...) These are elegant paintings that > seem facile, but they arent if you know how to look at a painting. > Any number of younger
