Last year I was a little scathing, but only because of what I want Cornish College of the Arts to be. I can imagine what it might be. What it is however, is Seattle's singular dedicated art school with its loyalties divided; small with the potential to be great. I should diplomatically state that I have a great appreciation for what Cornish does. As an art school it's evolving, and it seems like the program, faculty, and options get better every year. Nevertheless, as usual, I have an opinion. This opinion states that compared to last year's (relatively strong) graduating class, this year has me biting my tongue.
I want the students to break free. I want them to delve into what terrifies them and come out the other side. I want them to stop fighting the medium and hiding in the comfort of safe ideas. I want them to step outside of their minimum daily requirement of past and contemporary art history and go to First Thursday, Portland galleries, and Vancouver. I want them to get out of the rut which seems to haunt me with the memory of what Seattle art used to be, look like, taste like. Or at least get better at it if they're going to do it.
Dear gradating class of 2009. Don't be scared. Get the hell out there and transform, grow, and do things. Read. Write. Engage, participate and challenge.
Here's the thing. Every year, the University of Washington spits out a small number of MFA graduates who show their work at the Henry and then seem to almost effortlessly slip into the Seattle art world. UW's undergrads get a small nod of appreciation with a gallery show in Pioneer Square. Cornish gets a balls-out razzle-dazzle ginormous exhibition which is marketed, publicized, pimped out, and glamorous. Afterwards, the graduates disappear. Where do they go? Where are they now? Are they catching up on their art history?
I said last year that Cornish breeds artists. I'm hoping they do. I hope those artists don't grow up to be Artists. You know, the kind who hole up in a four-story tenement with the bathtub in the kitchen, eating cold Cambell's soup from the can and living off the fumes of a mythology that states artists have to suffer and make art alone in a vacuum.
Here are a couple of people I'm looking forward to meeting:
Justin R. Lytle, whose work reminds me of my friend Clay Franks; but at times they both remind me of Kwang-Young Chun
John Ruszel has a lovely thing going with tension sculptures, which remind me a little of Eric Eley
The Cornish College of the Arts BFA show is this Friday, 8 May, 5-9 pm. (address is in the link)
Don't let me get you off on the wrong foot. It's always a blast, and there's always something that catches you by surprise and makes you feel good about the state ofart schools the art school in Seattle. I promise.
The Cornish College of the Arts BFA show is this Friday, 8 May, 5-9 pm. (address is in the link)
Don't let me get you off on the wrong foot. It's always a blast, and there's always something that catches you by surprise and makes you feel good about the state of
I see a couple of good things in there, some pretension, and a lot I don't find that particularly interesting. I think I am getting jaded...
ReplyDeleteYou might be jaded; you might not - it is student work after all. Lest I trip over my pedestal, I have to remember I was one of them.
ReplyDeleteThese things are always a mixed bag. But I would like to think it is an informed mix bag. Alas, I don't think it is, and that's the biggest beef I have.
i love eley - his sculptures remind me of one of the original tension artists, kenneth snelson, from the 60's but with a chaotic personality seemingly more fitting for our times...but then again, it was the 60's...that's actually kind of an interesting thing to think about...
ReplyDeleteThe saddest of all this is that true artists are born being artists -- with the talent and a mind that works differently than the rest of the world --
ReplyDeleteThey have no need of a school to teach them to be --
Study is wonderful -- look outside every day, study it, put your spin on it -- study art books, put your spin on them -- and then create as only an artist can do --
Learn how to market yourself, learn about the business end of art....and then maybe, if you're lucky, while you're working elsewhere to pay the bill, you will also be concentrating on your talent and how to get it recognized.
There are so many opportunities out there - look at smaller places to show, past art walks or big galleries -- you'll be surprised what you'll find.
That's true Anonymous, that's true. But I'm not the one who will be surprised; the best work is found in unexpected places. It's not really so much that I'm not seeing opportunities and good art in Seattle as it is that I'm not seeing people grab hold of those hidden and or DIY possibilities.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it's likely the point I was making is convoluted; I'm trying to point out that the city has only one art school, the students in that art school are lucky when they hit the mark because I don't remember them being particularly involved with past/contemporary art history; and lastly, I'm challenging Cornish grads to not disappear as they so often do once they're released into the wild.
Anonymous, do you really believe that art is some divine spark that isn't accessible to other lesser beings?
Hmmm, good question -- if we are going to speak of "divine" sparks, well there are those who are in a league of their own. They didn't need art school. Their whole lives are "studies".
ReplyDeleteLook at Di Vinci - He was born being an artist, every breath he took was about art, from the clothes he put on in the morning, until he drank his last goblet of wine in the evening - there just wasn't anything else he could have done.
Surely you can not compare him to Warhol -- Andy did a marvelous job of self promotion, took a venue and made it his own -- but don't kid yourself that he and Di Vinci are in the same league.
Both successful, both renowned, both in the right place at the right time, but only one did have that divine spark -- and perhaps the answer as to which one had it, can only be answered by our own individuality.
However....I am willing to bet on who the majority of the world would say was given a rare gift.
Perhaps those who have fallen by the wayside from Cornish or any other Art School, had expectations, when not met to the standard they wanted, were able to "just move on" -- one born with the "spark" has not that option - whether it's just arranging flowers for a living, selling art supplies, camping out at art walks, a born artist has no choice in the matter, every breath they take, no matter what they do, their lives will be about art....and whatever they end up doing for a living is irrelevant.
I commend you for arranging Cornish grad's, any grad's for that matter.
All beings have a divine spark in some field, but not all who practice (in any field) come by it as naturally as others -- some are simply born with it. It's a gift.
Well now, Anonymous; you have to know I'm going to point out that Da Vinci was a highly educated and informed artist - he didn't just create the work out of nothing. And in fact the crux of what I'm trying to say is that art should be informed, irrespective of its origin.
ReplyDeleteAs to his personal life as an artist and how he lived, I can only speculate - I've read nothing of his life that suggests his every breath was about art, but I'm not the romantic sort. I detest the cliche.
I consider myself driven, myopically focussed on all things art, living only for it and working hard at little else. But my morning routine and small day-to-day choices are about as unromantic and unartistic as it gets.
Perhaps a break from living every moment as a part of artmaking is important to me. Perhaps not every artist born to be so needs to live their life as The Agony and the Ecstasy (a Michaelangelo reference but still).
And yes, Warhol and Da Vinci are in the same league. Their impact on history is no less important, significant, or effective. Warhol and Da Vinci are different facets of the same thing, you simply prefer one over the other.
Life as an artist is hard. Those who want it will hopefully develop a thick enough skin to say screw it and move forward intrepidly.
And hopefully I'm not coming across as argumentative; I appreciate your willingness to step into discussion. After all, that's what this is all about, Anonymous!
ReplyDeleteNah, good discussion.
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong with the assumption that I prefer Di Vinci over Warhol.....I probably prefer Monet.
A guy with a polaroid, no matter how creative or original he might be, is not as significant as the guy who penned the Codex Hammer - Did you happen to see it when Gates had it on display in Seattle?
Andy changed one generations definition of pop art, he opened the door for the appreciation Liechenstein and that genre.
But until either of them have a private gallery devoted to ONE painting at the Louvre, they're just not in the same league as Di Vinci.
BTW, I didn't mean that by "living and breathing art" you were creating art, I meant it as the way one's mind works and what the eye sees from dawn to dusk.
If that makes me cliche and romantic, then I plead guilty.
Good discussion -- Keep throwing those questions and thoughts out there to be discussed!
I'm surprised we're even arguing over who contributed more to art: Da Vinci or Warhol. I can only speak personally, Da Vinci's work blows my mind. Especially his drawings. But Andy Warhol has influenced me and my ideas on what art is probably more than anyone. In another couple hundred of years, it will be interesting to see if Warhol ended up leaving as big of an impact as Da Vinci. I could easily see it happening. Also, I think Warhol's influence in much more populist. Andy made people think that anyone with a polaroid could make it art. And that was a huge and influential thing. Few people are going to see a painting by Da Vinci and think, "I could do that!". So my measure of who the best artist is wouldn't necessarily be based on the fact they have a private gallery at the Louvre but by how much they've actually changed the way we think about art.
ReplyDeleteSo my measure of who the best artist is wouldn't necessarily be based on the fact they have a private gallery at the Louvre but by how much they've actually changed the way we think about art.Ah, Joey -- very well said. Especially in regards to the accessibility to art. Da Vinci is certainly part of the class of artists on a pedestal; Warhol knocked that pedestal down with fervour. Different purposes, different times.
ReplyDelete*had to re-post the comment because it was unreadable
....but ya gotta admit, we're still debating the issue -- which truthfully has no "correct" answer, but what it has done is bring ideas out, opinions out.
ReplyDeleteSo much of art today is very tunnel visioned -- whether it's liberal or conservative - Many come out of Art school today with the opinion that as long as it's isn't traditional, then that's what it's all about -- Graduates from 50 years ago, were taught the classics first and then perhaps explored a more abstract art form, still believing the classics were all that counted.
Both are very tunnel visioned in what they believe.
Sorry Joey that you think this was "arguing" -- I thought (& I'm sure Sharon did too, as I believe that's what she's hoping to accomplish with this blog) that it was a great exercise in the exchange of ideas -- which is what's so lacking in art today -- the lack of respect between generations, mediums, art forms.
I was very saddened to hear that Di Vinci didn't make you say "I could do that" -- because there are SO many that it still does -- Whatever the art form is, as artists we should be curious enough to use the all art available to us as an exercise for our own imaginations.
The Mona Lisa has a private gallery because it continues to be questioned, talked about, and yes, inspires.
For me personally, it was a curiosity, I'm glad I saw it, but there have been far more interesting pieces in countless galleries, in my opinion.
But I gotta tell ya, it's done it's job just by all the exchange of idea's, the questiones raised, the debate it's created here in this blog.....isn't that what we all hope to accomplish with our work -- that in posterity it will continue to inspire people to discuss, debate and hopefully enlighten?
Long before there was a private gallery, Di Vinci's ideas and work accomplished that.
Well, in Joey's defense I believe he was saying that the discussion of "better/more significant/more impactful than" is less important than how they affect us individually.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that Da Vinci tells us we can't; I looked at Da Vinci as a child and thought "this is amazing" but my personal feeling is that Da Vinci comes from an era where art was elitism and one must be groomed or chosen to make it. Warhol comes from an era where art-as-elitism gets dismantled and available to anyone to make.
For me, creative energy lay dead in the water and didn't flourish until I understood I didn't have to make art like Da Vinci. For me, Post-modernism was the key to fertility.
Thank you, I do want to nurture discussion. Arguiing isn't a bad thing -- debate is what it is. I derive no negative connotations with disagreement.
Hadn't seen Sharon's answer to Joey's comment when I posted my blurb --
ReplyDeleteI'll share with you why I chose Warhol to compare with Di Vini -- Was talking to a class of hi school seniors -- and much to my surprise -- they didn't have a clue as to who Warhol was -- They knew Di Vinci and the Codex Hammer --
But Warhol, they hadn't even heard of --
Have to admit I was a bit floored, but it's really made me really think about generational art -- and how many artists do we not know of, who might have been those whose own generation thought they changed art -- and in reality didn't stand the test of time --
How many Warhols are out there, we'll never know or study and yet for the time they lived, they inspired?
Interesting concept.....and yet those kids could tell me about Leo, his thoughts, his ideas, his drawings and of course she, who made him most famous.
They thought it ridiculous that a Campbell's soup can could rock the art world.
Aren't we all feeling a bit dated.....
It really has been a great debate -- Thanks for letting me play along!
Hi Anonymous. I didn't mean real "arguing" -- I should have used something closer to discussion. I love all this increasing online discussion (which is in direct contrast to the typical SLOG visual arts posts) and appreciate the chance to participate.
ReplyDeleteI think a real and serious problem with Cornish that gets overlooked is the faculty. Many of them are cruising through their jobs, act as "working artists" and really have no grasp on what it means to be an artist in Seattle. I rarely see any of them out at shows, openings, performances etc. There are obviously a few exceptions but this generally holds true. Cornish stopped with the visiting Professors with the move much to the students detriment.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great post, thanks a lot for sharing your experience and views on this. It will be interesting to see what happens.
ReplyDelete