Whose is it?

Whose is it?

The academy… Oh how I struggle with the academy! But I also love, appreciate and love to criticize the academy. The academy keeps me thinking, which is the academy’s greatest gift! Of course, I am a product of the academy. I’m an ardent supporter of higher education and most especially education in the arts. Nevertheless, I hear so many common complaints about the academy, and chief among those complaints: “They want me to make my art their way.” Or similarly: “They force me to make the art they want.”

Ah yes, the “ol’ stamp of approval” is alive, well and prevalent in the academy no matter whether you’re a Freshman or Doctoral student. And I must state at the outset that I don’t disagree with it entirely—only in principle, especially when it’s misapplied.

Speaking specifically of the visual arts, students often complain that professors prescribe or suggest how art should be made, how it is accomplished and even go so far as to require aesthetic and subject matter changes. I once witnessed a professor take a brush out of a student’s hand, paint upon the student’s painting and say, “There, that’s better.” I was horrified! But, I’ve seen this twice. I’ve watched as professors not only suggest aesthetics changes, but also demanded or strongly suggested changes in subject matter and style. And recently I read some comments from a professor who wrote to a student wherein the professor urged the student to completely abandon a specific (successful) style to include vastly different content, which the professor judged more contemporary and informed. The suggestions, in my opinion, were indicative of that professor’s personal style and taste, which—in that professor’s art—includes content that I personally judge as strange, disconnected, ugly and dissonant. Is it “Art”? Of course! But if I’m being honest, that professor’s art is bad, worthless, dumpster art. And a professor’s individual taste should never interfere with a student’s desired practice.

Nevertheless is it wrong for a professor to say these things, to challenge a student or prescribe experimentation? Here’s a hint: yes and no, but I’ll get back to this in a moment.

Now in my opinion the academy—at large—is stuck in the past and also in the predominant rut of challenging students to experiment and thereby inspire growth. It’s a “one size fits all” static, stale and rigid pedagogical concept rampantly misapplied. And for too many professors it’s the only arrow in their quiver—it’s all they know, it’s what they’ve been taught, what’s been passed down to them, their business-as-usual model. I’m belaboring the point on purpose. Why, you might ask? While art itself isn't stuck—thankfully ever evolving, pedagogy and curriculum development in studio art has largely experienced little evolutionary growth or transformation since after World War II.

Jerry Saltz, Senior Art Critic at New York Magazine, recently wrote, “I get mad at the art world too:… …at tenured academics who can’t turn the page from 1968…” (10/13/2011 at 01:00 AM, Blog / New York Magazine / Work of Art Recap: Jerry Saltz Is Back Recapping His Own Reality Show).

I agree [although I’d venture to say it might be even earlier than 1968]. I’d add to that the current crop of tenure-track academics have carried forth that tradition of not turning the page into their own academic careers or who are themselves narrowed by adherence to static, stale, rigid pedagogical concepts rampantly misapplied. (Yes, it bears repeating).

In certain academies like the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, there is a veritable buffet of classes from which to choose in every visual art discipline. If you take a painting class in, say, impressionism, as a student you shouldn’t be surprised to be expected to paint like an impressionist. However, at academies where class offerings are less profuse, students can—I think—expect to experience the “ol’ stamp of approval—by this way you shall pass—paint what I tell you to paint” dictum.

Okay, I’ll answer the question… At academies that cannot offer the wide range of classes available at more prolific programs like SAIC, is it wrong to ask or direct a student to experiment in their studio practice? No, it’s not wrong. Experimentation can and does inspire growth. I really believe this. However, professors, themselves, must never force a student into performing “only by this way shall you pass—stamp of approval” art in lieu of creating their own art and style. The challenge for the professor is to be knowledgeable enough, skilled enough and flexible enough to steward a student—especially those in their junior and senior years—to grow in their (the student’s) practice, to refine and to improve the practice students will either work in after graduation or use to gain acceptance to graduate school. In my opinion, at such academies, curriculum should be changed, developed and pedagogical practice evolved to promote and direct experimentation only in the freshman and sophomore years (as in those institutions with First-Year Programs), leaving the junior year to coalesce a student’s practice, to see if their ideas are working, to mentor refinements and to prepare the student for the later part of their junior year and the beginning of the senior year—before an undergraduate must consider a career trajectory or graduate school applications—to accomplishing/making cohesive art.

I owe a great deal to my professors and others who once suggested a change or two, especially when writing my dissertation! I’m quite fond of quoting something a professor once told me: “You’re not here for my approval, you’re here to see if your ideas work.” For the most part, I can gladly report that the difference in my experience—with only three painfully notable exceptions—is that almost all of the suggestions and criticism I’ve received were constructive, guiding and helpful. Additionally, with the exception of the same three painfully notable exceptions, all of the suggestions and criticism I’ve received dealt with my ideas and subject matter. What is/was the difference in my experience versus so many others? My professors! My professors respected my ideas, addressed my style—even my writing, though in my dissertation I naturally had to conform to a more scholarly standard—and they stewarded me on to greater accomplishment and success. But, I’m lucky! I’m in the minority.

When I’m fortunate enough to teach—and I do consider it a privilege each and every time—I try and pay forward the support and professionalism I experienced and received when I was a student. If more of those entrusted with the task of nurturing developing artists would consider their jobs in this light, perhaps academia might be a better place. And, perhaps, it is time for instructors and professors in the academy to be held accountable to the standards of professional development that have long been in place in other departments. It is laughable to think that, say, a professor of medicine or computer science would still be teaching theories prevalent in 1968, yet art department faculty are expected to simply continue producing and exhibiting their own artworks. Ongoing discussions of relevant theory and criticism should also be expected of faculty members in art departments, and their personal art practice should perhaps be evaluated in terms of individual growth and development as well, lest professors produce the same kinds of works decade after decade.

Radical ideas, to be sure. But, as Jerry Saltz’s comment cited earlier illustrates, it is time for the academy to re-evaluate its business model, to advance past 1968, and to join with other academic disciplines in the 21st century university.