| > To me this missive reads as a response to some specific questions. It would have been nice to know what those questions were. I wondered the same thing. What is the context for this reply? > It seems well-meant, but it also comes across as rather trite and not a little preachy. How do you form that judgement without knowing the questioner, the responder, their relationship, the question, or the context for the question? I understand that you "would not dream of writing something like this". That's you. In this case, the teacher prefaces his remarks with "However, for me, it has little to do with why I make art. I believe that art is made to explore the world and the culture, to explore the chosen medium, to explore one's self." He sounds authentic, and the view he shares is clearly personal. His advice counsels against ego or commerce centric exhibitionism, in favour of authenticity and art for art's sake. That doesn't strike me as trite. What he says sounds heartfelt. |
I stand by my position.
One thing I know as a teacher of art is that you are not doing your job unless your students replace you: their ideas of good/bad art replace yours, their points of reference and their system of values replace yours. Advice from old artists to young artists is a bit like your great grandfather teaching you how to play Pokémon Go.
I believe that this ongoing 'plowing under' is what distinguishes art from science. Scientists can build upon a body of knowledge, artists burn each preceding generation to the ground.