Making art is like running for office. In an academic environment, young artists will pursue certain avenues in their artwork that work well, while others lead to less effective solutions. They choose different media, different techniques, different content. Sometimes that change is slow, other times it seems like students are bringing something completely different to each group critique in just a matter of weeks over the course of one semester. They have constantly changing ideas. On the surface, it appears that they are scrambling to come up with the next BIG idea, or they're just trying to find something in their art that is satisfying, if only to them alone. And they come under scrutiny for it. Art students have to stand in front of their peers and professors and explain these dramatic changes. They have to defend choices they're making.
Why are you using glaze instead of paint in ceramics? Why are you consistently making your canvases 5 feet by 5 feet when they could be 5 x 5 inches? Why did you choose this color over that one? There's a disconnect between what the work is saying and what you're saying about the work. Why are there so many different things to look at here? Why isn't there more?
Some students crush under this kind of pressure, never finding their voice as an artist. Others thrive, standing up for their decisions as they further refine their technique and increase their ability to articulate their BIG ideas. This comes to mind when looking at the current political race. The Republican nominee has a history of creating and identifying with a kind of policy that seems counter to his current platform (while governor of MA he supported gun control, abortion, tackling climate change, and required health care). Now, running for president, he seems to have reversed his tactic on nearly all of those issues. It's hard to tell if this is because of circumstances - maybe he has the freedom outside of a liberal state like MA to change and be the politician he wants to be - maybe he is under the influence of the party for which he represents.
Regardless, it seems akin to the group critique situation. Some artists collapse under the weight of too much advice. Professors hound them about the thing they
should be doing instead of letting them figure it out on their own. It's hard to blame the teacher for that; sometimes there is only so much time in a semester. But experience being any kind of judge will tell you that the artist who finally gets a firm grasp on a direction is the one that moves forward.
After watching the RNC keynote speech by Chris Christie last night and comparing that with some of the other speeches of the night, it seems like the folks in the Republican party were explaining why the party is strong (or their own accomplishments were great) but not why Mr. Romney was strong (or great). They mentioned things like leadership. Perhaps it is time for Mr. Romney to finish absorbing the input from his party's advisers and start leading it. If he hopes to become the leader of our country, perhaps he should start by taking a stand within his own party. To see that kind of firm grounding and steadfast commitment to the platform may in fact change the tide. Or reveal to the viewers (voters) the kind of art (policy) they don't want to hang on their walls (Oval walls at that) come November.
No comments:
Post a Comment