That's Not Art

I imagine that many Americans are feeling pretty burned out politically after the past election, but if I can be forgiven, there is a comparison I would like to make between American art and American politics. In both there are essentially two camps (I know this is an extreme oversimplification, but please bear with me): one group values the establishments of the past, and the other presses for new strategies and ideas. Politicians and artists in one camp attack the other other camp, and, with both politics and art, neither is willing to accept the other and the divide grows wider. In art both sides claim that the other side is not art.

I overheard a few days ago a painting professor telling his class that accurate representational painting is not art--that a teacher cannot teach a student how to paint because they will never learn to be creative. I of course disagree with that philosophy because while It is true that mechanical representation is boring and lifeless, creativity that is dictated by inability is hardly creative. This example represents the tension between the side of art that admires and appreciates the skill and dedication required to create visual interest and beauty, and the side that rejects the aesthetics of the past or seeks to illuminate some great unknown or question perception. The problem, as I see it, is that neither side can see the value of the other side.

I taught a painting workshop last summer in a city several hours from here. Near the location of the workshop is a university with an art program. Many of my students were students of this university who came to my workshop to learn HOW to paint because they could not learn it there. They complained to me about how terrible, in their opinion, the art program was and described "swirls of paint" and "throwing mud at canvas" from painting classes they took there. I was sympathetic because I felt like I had also been a victim of an academic art imbalance.

Realism and traditional skill in representation are uncommon in academia. A person who wants to learn to paint representationally may have a difficult time learning it at many colleges or universities because many art professors don't appreciate it, and/or they don't know how to do it.

Without diversity of artistic recognition and appreciation art is like a hand with all thumbs, making for some pretty awkward stuff.

My work is obviously representational and I appreciate traditional skill and craftsmanship, but that doesn't mean I don't also appreciate work that is far different from my own. In fact I had the opportunity recently to view the work of an art graduate student that I found absolutely exciting and fascinating despite the fact that I had absolutely no desire to create work that was similar in any way to hers. He work was conceptual in nature and challenged social rules and forced the viewer to reevaluate their instinctual obedience to these rules. I loved the way it was presented, and I thought it was exceptional, but I knew I could not make work like hers. I don't want to, and I think that's ok.

I believe in balance. Imagine if Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, capitalists and socialists, Tea Partyists and Occupiers, and artist of all kinds learned to appreciate the perspectives and values of those they currently see as rivals. A wheel and and engine may be quite different, but neither can get very far on its own. There is a benefit to accepting differences and working together. Like a sophisticated machine, each part plays an important role.

Art should be a celebration of diversity in all its forms. Let's stop saying "That's not art."