Batman/Paul's Questions

 "What's Wrong With Contemporary Art?"

This is available on Google Books. read pages 28-33.

Questions

1. Is the author of this book being overly simplistic? Define overly simplistic? Every author has to define an idea through words it is what they do, words put restrictions on ideas. But yes, he is breaking down to the simplest idea. 

2. Is the author being overly cynical? Yes, a bit, "THi sis how art history is used: not as open enquiry, but in order to give recent art a legitimizing historical lineage and to reinforce the notion that art is nothing more than a variety of rational discourse about social issues." and "All they (young student artists) need is the right look and the ability to attract attention to themselves. A deal with a commercial gallery can be expected follow and their careers are off to a flying start. From that magical beginning, most of them will never recover."

3. Can you be cynical and paranoid and still be correct in your assertions concerning matters that are highly subjective? Sure, but I don't think that he is correct in all of his assertions. His ideas on how the phd in studio art works/doesn't work, I can see how this would be an issue for your process but fit perfectly with mine, so it can not be a completely thoughtful structure. 

4. Since "group think" is not only entrenched in the art world but the real world, should it not be encouraged in art school ?  I think it shows up in art school, but that is natural and happens in these settings, it shouldn't be discouraged but always challenged. 

5. Does the fine arts department at Ringling College of Art and Design represent a microcosm of the Art World? Hahah, I don't think so, maybe the first level of it's structure, but none of us get turned away from showing at the Crossley gallery and there is not a distinctive difference between those who succeed and those who are failing, even when those who are failing are doing so because of a tangible thing (such as they have not produced work or have not done required writings, etc) 

6. As stated in the reading "does privileging words over visual expression encourage a narrowly didactic approach to art making?" This goes back to the questions, when is the art "made", when the idea is had, put into a sketch, when you have the physical object? when that object is accepted? But yes, I think it can. 

7. Is Automatism or any other intuitive approach discouraged in contemporary art academia? I think more analytical work is encouraged but that more intuitive work is accepted as long as it is supported by thoughtful dissection of purpose, intent, motivation, etc. 

8. Do you believe my work would have been  better served had I not attended art college? No, I think that there are a lot of really good studio practices that you have figured out about your way of working, process, restraints, experiences, etc, that have really enhanced your work and I am not sure you would have gotten there as quickly without being in this setting. It may have taken you more than a decade outside of this setting. 

9. Do you believe my work to be self indulgent? A bit, but I indulge in it as well. All of our work is a bit. We make something and then say hey, look at this thing I have made. It is part of the experience. 

10. If all art is self indulgent to a certain extent, should I not embrace this approach? Do it, I support that, but I also know that you will continue to read and think about work because that is the type of person you are, so I know that won't be lost in the work. 

11. Does the "it's all about me" approach to my work alienate you the viewer? Not when they can relate to you. Maybe we should alienate the viewer occasionally.