Art : idea vs skill

Another Perspective:

Since the days of the European Renaissance, the guild model had master artists and craftsmen coexisting in the art world of the post-humanist period. As new forms of artistic expression emerged, involving architects, music composers, film directors, and others where multiple contributors played a role in creating art, questions of authorship, both in terms of conceiving and crafting, have posed significant ethical and philosophical challenges in both the art world and academia. The relevance of this question grew substantially after Marcel Duchamp's introduction of readymades and reached its zenith with the rise of installation art. This was especially true with the arrival of the Young British Artists (YBA) and others in the new world of market-driven art, where artworks were often commissioned or outsourced. Interestingly, the arguments put forth by William Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement remained ever-present, ensuring that this debate stayed alive.

When we consider that it's not just the idea but also its translation through craftsmanship that is exhibited, the question arises: if the idea is the sole essence, then why does one need to rely on the craft of making or translating for an art exhibition, as discussed in Sol LeWitt's tenets of conceptual art? Conversely, if one argues that craftsmanship alone defines art, then questions arise about the evolution of aesthetics and the role of artistic imagination. Beyond mechanical reproduction, something even a computerized printer can achieve with precision, where does the creative aspect come into play? This dilemma, it seems, is one that the art world may never fully resolve.

However, despite these arguments, when one witnesses people admiring a painting of a soiled shoe, even though in real life, they wouldn't go near such an object, it continues to raise questions about the role of craftsmanship in art. Whether it's the art of imagination, the art of craft, the craft of imagination through the art of craft, or the craft of the art of imagination, this debate will persist. This debate becomes especially intriguing in an era when the concept of the author's demise is contemplated within post-modernist theoretical constructs, ironically often associated with the names of their authors – a conundrum that can be a nightmare for art teachers.

artists and designers as institution and institution as an embodiment of learning

"... those who sought a more active role for artists within the burgeoning field of higher education believed they had the necessary expertise to cover content that bridged studio experience, art historical themes, and philosophical issues.

This, after all, was what contemporary artists seriously thought about. It seemed reasonable to surround the artist(as a teacher) with aspiring students who would benefit from serious exchange on topics about art and life. As such, curriculum content could not be specified formally and techniques could not be introduced as prerequisites for creativity: Teaching became conversation and learning focused on individual aesthetic problem-solving. This version of the expert-novice model relied on the image of the artists as a social outsiders engaged in an intense pursuit of a personal vision. Consequently, the criteria for newness were not seen in relation to past or existing image banks or stylistic brands but by a measure of radical difference. The drive toward the illusion of “things never seen” reached a mythical status that kept the social constructed-ness of art practice at bay, at least until the theoretical onslaught of post-modernism.":: Graeme Sullivan

Although the last line is no longer relevant under the present theoretical constructs, the complex dilemma of artist/designer as an institution of learning or institutional as an embodiment of artistic learning are highlighted in Grame sullivan’s paragraph.

Even as one could argue for the validity of these academic positions of artists/designers as institution and institution as an embodiment of learning with sighting sufficient examples among the social construct of “successful artists and designers” in place, but then one will also have to accept the fact that present crisis in art and design world is also stemming from these academic positions. In reality, the assumed mutuality of “the worth of an outcome and its larger social value” with the procedural outcome of an academic process has always been a questionable pedigree among institutions.

Beyond the social influence of the artist in society and the market, historically artist as an institution of learning often hasn’t been able to contribute much to anybody’s creative practice more than defining a practice for a student within his/her domain of expertise. Same way beyond the subjective pruning of an idea and its construct in art and design practice, the academic /pedagogic approach with its scientific and theoretical construct also could not contribute much to creative practice than validating one’s preparedness for a practice based on, again benchmarks of subjective expertise of the teacher. Considering this process again is the exact subjective position of the artist(here teacher) as an institution, we find ourselves in a complex position without a valid option.

A methodology for coherent practice of mutuality with one's position in life - one to one, one to many and many to many( individual to individual, individual to community and community to society) if not evolved in academics, where one is considered simultaneously as a subjective possibility and limitation than a leader, and to that all theoretical or physical production remain only a subset, the emerging crisis of individual creative practitioner and their relevance in a society among egalitarian technological access system and with universal value, will remain a big question for the relevance of academics and institutions in the coming days.

Further add on to this crisis, unlike the pre-nineteenth century idea of the enlightenment value of meaning in creative practice and truth, in a post-twentieth century world, the statistical value of meaning and its subjective construction of truth will turn objectivity of institutional learning into a subject of conditional evaluation. In other words, if institutions do not address the need for a coherent practice of mutuality with one's position in life and elevate that position to objective living than subjective living as statistical inference of truth envisages, one would certainly start to argue against the larger objective of the process of learning by sighting examples of the success rate of reactionary practices and its sufficiency -elaborately speaking, the success rate of cut and paste job, something the present day art and design world are already over-flooded.