I agree with what you say here. My teacher was a student of Hans Hoffman who was very clear about the distinctions between the art historical tradition, art criticism and what he called the “studio tradition”. The last was handed down from teacher to student while actually working. They emphasized that that tradition was recorded nowhere except in small hastily drawn diagrams on scraps of paper or by the teacher actually doing work on the students’ drawings and which gradually erased through the process of continuing the drawing.
Carter, I enjoy reading your articles very much, and was wondering if you have already or would consider devoting an article to the role of the title in a work of Art, and its power to either add to or detract from the overall presentation. I believe a successful title will often blur the line between Art and Poetry, while a poorer title will render the artwork little more than a serviceable illustration.
I read your latest column with great interest, having graduated with a degree in Art History back in 1976. I didn't experience my instruction in the dry way you describe, but rather remember being taught to follow my eyes, and how they created form for me in the present. We also studied the impact of historical periods on the art of their time, and I began being interested in the sociology of it all. Later I got an MFA in painting, and have lived as an artist the rest of my life since then. I credit my BA with giving me a sense of the context of work I see and yes, experience. In fact, we had a class on Pollock, taught by an artist, who discussed all of his critical approbation and whether it held water. Phenomenology was something that I picked up on after that, and I see that it still serves as a wonderful way to find meaning through experiencing art I would say that somewhat more recent scholarship, with it's emphasis on French theory and semiotics, is the thing that possibly has tilted Art History towards a more rigid approach, even as it stressed "difference", but leaned heavily on language and jargon. I'm hoping that those days are also fading away, and talk is again more about individual experience, including historical context, for work we see today. I wish there was a stronger critical position (with much variety of opinion) in the art world right now! It feels splintered by the internet and the force of the market place on most discussions of art. I'm glad you're here, and always happy to read your columns.
YES! I 100% agree and you don't know how many times I've thought of this and gotten pissed at art historian text. There is one example that particularly makes me grind my teeth, which is the typical remark that at the end of his life Monet painted like that because of his eye cataracts. I'm not saying it didn't affect him, but if you look at all his paintings from the formal, visual and experiential point, his painterly development was not only logical, but also volitional and experimental. By making the remark of his eye problems, it seems as if he didn't have the will to paint like that, as if he just couldn't help it. It's as stupid as to say that Tracey Emin new paintings are not sexual cause she had a hysterectomy. Sounds very stupid to say it right now, but I'm sure in the future there will be an idiot art historian who will say something along these lines. There are thousands of examples of putting meaning in the factual or historical events of the artist above their experience or will. I believe by your critical method of experiencing before meaning you approach more to the art, because you approach more to the way the art is practiced, to how that art is conceived by the artist, which normally is experience before meaning.
Hi Carter: Recently rereading Kozloff on color as a token of experience--and a monkey wrench thrown into the formalism of his Artforum colleagues ("Venetian Art and Florentine Criticism," 1967). The conversation you recall and your comments on Autumn Rhythm nicely illustrate the limitations of "bloodless" criticism against which Max revolted.
This is a wonderful essay, and the responses show its effect on artists.
To expand, individual experience is the cornerstone not only of our free society but also of true humanity. We are born free as individuals, each of us unique. We experience everything as ourselves, even if we are controlled and manipulated by a super state or even imprisoned.
The "proponents of art theory" or Theorists of all sorts, societal, political, or structural, all proceed top-down: here is the program, now just do it, OBEY. See and think like we say. Even the association of Art Historians has a code of agreeability that such and such is valuable. All of it amounts to the "Ministry of Truth " . The tyranny of the state .
Importantly, such tyrannies are real and in practice today, applying mandates in cultural arts, social behaviors ( your score !!), religious beliefs, and even currencies ( fiat money is issued by the state and your money belongs to them, not you-- PROOF: in 2014 the Swiss National Bank devalued the Franc by 20%, so swiss savers and retirees had their life work devalued 20% because it was 'good for the state'. The US Fed can do the same any time at all. ).
The Theories or Conditions of Value preceding the experience of individuals always will wind up in State Control or Tyranny of Experts, Theorists, Publicists, Editors, etc. Artists like Walt Whitman or Pollack or William Blake offer everything that we value the most, underlying their wonderful works : Individual Liberty.
The interesting part begins After we agree with the experience of seeing or reading any work- Sharing our experience with others. This is the spiraling communication of our meanings, creating a shared value amongst groups. Artists and collectors do this. Sometimes it hits with the Art Historians before they expire, so that a content or set of assessments is registered in one generation. THEN, the communication can spiral across generations. "The Birth of Venus" is still debated and experienced in its meanings.
NOTE- The Art Historians and Collectors, the great experts, left it and " Primavera " sitting in basements for 200 years .. !!
If the Theorists and Absolutists had any real insights , Why are they wrong so often .?? _!!
Like Ms Schifano, here, I too was educated well in Art History, but learned all my art making in the tradition of studio learning, with other artists , from age 8 through my 30's & 40's in New York. It is a sound process for practice and excellence.
Beware the Tyrannical !! Stay true to your individuality
I agree with what you say here. My teacher was a student of Hans Hoffman who was very clear about the distinctions between the art historical tradition, art criticism and what he called the “studio tradition”. The last was handed down from teacher to student while actually working. They emphasized that that tradition was recorded nowhere except in small hastily drawn diagrams on scraps of paper or by the teacher actually doing work on the students’ drawings and which gradually erased through the process of continuing the drawing.
Carter, I enjoy reading your articles very much, and was wondering if you have already or would consider devoting an article to the role of the title in a work of Art, and its power to either add to or detract from the overall presentation. I believe a successful title will often blur the line between Art and Poetry, while a poorer title will render the artwork little more than a serviceable illustration.
I read your latest column with great interest, having graduated with a degree in Art History back in 1976. I didn't experience my instruction in the dry way you describe, but rather remember being taught to follow my eyes, and how they created form for me in the present. We also studied the impact of historical periods on the art of their time, and I began being interested in the sociology of it all. Later I got an MFA in painting, and have lived as an artist the rest of my life since then. I credit my BA with giving me a sense of the context of work I see and yes, experience. In fact, we had a class on Pollock, taught by an artist, who discussed all of his critical approbation and whether it held water. Phenomenology was something that I picked up on after that, and I see that it still serves as a wonderful way to find meaning through experiencing art I would say that somewhat more recent scholarship, with it's emphasis on French theory and semiotics, is the thing that possibly has tilted Art History towards a more rigid approach, even as it stressed "difference", but leaned heavily on language and jargon. I'm hoping that those days are also fading away, and talk is again more about individual experience, including historical context, for work we see today. I wish there was a stronger critical position (with much variety of opinion) in the art world right now! It feels splintered by the internet and the force of the market place on most discussions of art. I'm glad you're here, and always happy to read your columns.
Could not agree more. Leaving out the experience is like one—to repurpose Donne's words—who goes to sea only to become sick.
Also, speaking of experience, the experience of the Jack Whitten retrospective at MoMA up now is inspiring.
YES! I 100% agree and you don't know how many times I've thought of this and gotten pissed at art historian text. There is one example that particularly makes me grind my teeth, which is the typical remark that at the end of his life Monet painted like that because of his eye cataracts. I'm not saying it didn't affect him, but if you look at all his paintings from the formal, visual and experiential point, his painterly development was not only logical, but also volitional and experimental. By making the remark of his eye problems, it seems as if he didn't have the will to paint like that, as if he just couldn't help it. It's as stupid as to say that Tracey Emin new paintings are not sexual cause she had a hysterectomy. Sounds very stupid to say it right now, but I'm sure in the future there will be an idiot art historian who will say something along these lines. There are thousands of examples of putting meaning in the factual or historical events of the artist above their experience or will. I believe by your critical method of experiencing before meaning you approach more to the art, because you approach more to the way the art is practiced, to how that art is conceived by the artist, which normally is experience before meaning.
I have beeen waiting for this exact piece. Thanik you and very best wishes. Alva Fost
Meaning is a sticky mirage!
Hi Carter: Recently rereading Kozloff on color as a token of experience--and a monkey wrench thrown into the formalism of his Artforum colleagues ("Venetian Art and Florentine Criticism," 1967). The conversation you recall and your comments on Autumn Rhythm nicely illustrate the limitations of "bloodless" criticism against which Max revolted.
This is a wonderful essay, and the responses show its effect on artists.
To expand, individual experience is the cornerstone not only of our free society but also of true humanity. We are born free as individuals, each of us unique. We experience everything as ourselves, even if we are controlled and manipulated by a super state or even imprisoned.
The "proponents of art theory" or Theorists of all sorts, societal, political, or structural, all proceed top-down: here is the program, now just do it, OBEY. See and think like we say. Even the association of Art Historians has a code of agreeability that such and such is valuable. All of it amounts to the "Ministry of Truth " . The tyranny of the state .
Importantly, such tyrannies are real and in practice today, applying mandates in cultural arts, social behaviors ( your score !!), religious beliefs, and even currencies ( fiat money is issued by the state and your money belongs to them, not you-- PROOF: in 2014 the Swiss National Bank devalued the Franc by 20%, so swiss savers and retirees had their life work devalued 20% because it was 'good for the state'. The US Fed can do the same any time at all. ).
The Theories or Conditions of Value preceding the experience of individuals always will wind up in State Control or Tyranny of Experts, Theorists, Publicists, Editors, etc. Artists like Walt Whitman or Pollack or William Blake offer everything that we value the most, underlying their wonderful works : Individual Liberty.
The interesting part begins After we agree with the experience of seeing or reading any work- Sharing our experience with others. This is the spiraling communication of our meanings, creating a shared value amongst groups. Artists and collectors do this. Sometimes it hits with the Art Historians before they expire, so that a content or set of assessments is registered in one generation. THEN, the communication can spiral across generations. "The Birth of Venus" is still debated and experienced in its meanings.
NOTE- The Art Historians and Collectors, the great experts, left it and " Primavera " sitting in basements for 200 years .. !!
If the Theorists and Absolutists had any real insights , Why are they wrong so often .?? _!!
Like Ms Schifano, here, I too was educated well in Art History, but learned all my art making in the tradition of studio learning, with other artists , from age 8 through my 30's & 40's in New York. It is a sound process for practice and excellence.
Beware the Tyrannical !! Stay true to your individuality
... and thanks for the fine essay .