----- Original Message ----- From: "Miles Jackson" <cqmv at pdx.edu>
"I'd say the prevailing ideology is that the Artist should be able to articulate the True Meaning of the Work. For me, this assumption reflects the capitalist concept of the person as an autonomous, personally responsible individual."
It's a mixed bag. I don't believe the artist is expected to articulate the true meaning of the work. The critics are supposed to do that. I'd say we still subscribe to some mixture of the Platonic/Romantic notion of the artist as a conduit of inspiration, which my means of schooling/skill, creates a work of art.
" However, no work of art is the isolated product of a single person; it is in fact the result of a complex constellation of social relations."
Agreed here. Interestingly in our culture, the notion of the artist creatin an isolated produt is what lays the foundation for the apporpriateness of that object becoming the private property of those who can afford "art". So, although it seems like crediting the artist for his autonomous creation, in reality what it credits is the right of record companies and publishing houses to copyright-based profits.
"I'm not sure what any of this has to do with art education. I work with Art faculty at my community college, and I have observed no correlation between being a gifted artist and being a good art teacher. Helping people develop their artistic skills is one task; creating art is another. I agree wholeheartedly that an art teacher must be able to effectively communicate about art; I see no reason why an artist should."
I don't know that it's a question of "should." At the same time, art is a conscious process, and claiming that artists are mere conduits is to me suspicious on political grounds.
Joanna