first, i am not insulting anyone on the list. i stated that the text WAS NOT written for a 5th. grade class (so why treat it like it was). i'm guessing that Rob (and everyone else on the list) understood quite well what was being said in the initial post - perhaps a bit wordy for the taste of some, but oh well. the point is why discourage posts such as this by reacting to the language as if it may be meaningless. besides, meaning is determined by context. it's not internal to the text (or art). if the text is meaningless it's because WE have decided it. i'm simply saying that I vote for trying to find meaning rather than dismissal.
secondly, Rob's example of medical knowledge being no good to fix a car is very silly. we're not talking about two different realms of activity here. We ARE talking about art theory and art practice which have always gone together. Simply, all that theory is is talk/text about art - simply, discussing meaning. That's it. People have done it by grunting others with academics. If we don't want descriptive and interpretive language (theory) then what's the point of this list. let's just post pictures. finally, the bit that Rob wrote that art is only defensible if it does things that can't be done in any other way - i don't agree with that reductionist attitude toward art. too modernist for me. I also, find it interesting that Rob equates the management class with theory. I am in agreement to some degree here. the art world does reflect the divisions of labor found in capitalism. the rise of conceptual art and the activities of postmodern artists like Art and Language can be looked at as rising up out of the information economy and the patrons that produced just as modernism grew out of industrial capitalism. So we have managers (critics, curators, patrons and other art professionals) and artists (labor). i am not satisfied with this division of labor which is why i want to teach my students theory AND practice. many art students are like construction workers who suddenly find themselves in architecture school and then figure out they don't give a damn about theory because they assume that you can build something that will stand without it (btw - this is a bad analogy - this is something a construction worker would never do - build without a plan). in fact, all the students that I've ever had already have a coherent theory of art when they get in my class. The theory usually goes something like this, "I like to make art. I work with material. I don't need my intellect to do this. I know what's good because what I like is good." theory is always essential - it's who is in control of it and who it serves that matters. but it certainly does not need to be the domain of management - by not teaching it I would be effectively saying that theory (outside what you already know) is not for you it's only for the people who live on the other side of town. and it should also be said that theory is not exclusively working for the management class - there's tons of liberation theory out there that tries to create a language of empowerment for artists. this causes constant friction between teachers (workers) and administrations (bosses) in schools. there's tons of theory that questions the very construct of power that it so often gets associated with.
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour