I’m supposed to talk about what I have learned from this course and what I’ve gained from it as an artist. But as an artist I feel I’ve gained nothing. These constellation courses aren’t well designed for university students with their own vision.
I’ve proven my knowledge of art time and again. In A-level art and Art Foundation just for a start. I’m at a stage where I need to learn by doing. Not by reading. To quote Desmond Tutu “You learn to swim by swimming”. This is just taking me out of the metaphorical water. Wasting my time and stunting my growth as an artist.
If I have nothing good to say about the module as an artist, can I say I learned anything as a person? I’m not sure.
I knew many of the artists here. But had never read their writings or those of the theorists who inspired them. But the experience of reading these overlong, overblown, theory pieces has been one of the most joyless and frustrating reading experiences of my life. It didn’t enhance the work for me, it did the opposite. I now respect some of the artists involved less for it.
Beneath all the fancy language there is a degree of pettiness to all these journals, worthy of a modern Twitter feud. Everyone claims their art is the purist, or in some cases the only real art at all. And everyone thinks they are the final word in art. History ends with them. Only Donald Judd escaped from this narcissism unscathed. And even he couldn’t escape all the snide bickering that went on between these supposed mature adults.
When people are sniping at each-other for adding one brush stroke of paint, or even using paint at all, it suggests something has gone wrong. Rather than being a cornucopia of creativity the art world became a collection of dogmatic cults where any deviation spells hysteria and anger if you are a heretic, and excommunication if you are a follower.
It doesn’t help that some of it is barely readable. There is so much deliberately over-complicated writing that it can take hours to read. And when deciphered it’s dry and bland once you strip out all the ego-stroking and infighting. The reasons why these art works exist tend to be less exciting than the ideas you had in your head. But when art is made to be pure art and nothing else how can it not be cold and emotionless? An emotion would point to something that is not art. And alluding to things outside of the single artwork is forbidden. That’s how the old art worked.
The fact these manifestos and Journals were read so avidly baffles me. The theories are always so boring and honestly, very samey.
Besides. The work is always infinitely more powerful than the writing behind it.
So, the main thing I’ve learned from reading all these art journals and manifestos is that I hate reading them. Followed by them not feeling relevant to the works or even antithetical to how the works came out.
I don’t even find that my feelings about 20th century art have changed. I still like the artists I like, and still dislike the ones I disliked to begin with. But I already knew it’s almost impossible to change a person’s view on an artwork by force of argument.
I’ve also learned I find the artists more compelling than the movements they were in. When an artist is good it doesn’t matter what movement they belonged to. Though I’m certainly more likely to appreciate an artist from movement I like.
Movements come and go. But the artists who worked in them remain powerful and relevant long after the ideas and rules of the movement have been forgotten.
More, even in their own lifetimes these artists keep on making great works long after the movements they are associated with have faded away.
But do these movements at least act as a useful springboard for these artists? A way for them to find their voice and get some notice before stepping out on their own? I don’t know. I can’t judge with the limited information I have right now.
But when you consider how many great artists from before, during, and after the 20th Century were not tied to specifics movements, you have to wonder if these movements even matter at all.
One thing I have learned about myself is I usually find these journals a lot easier to read if it’s by an artist I like. This is not always the case. Robert Morris’s manifesto on minimalism was one of the worst reading experiences of my life. But when reading books on Dan Flavin for my final essay I found my enthusiasm for him helped enormously in understanding the more theoretical side of the texts.
On that note, I feel glad that I was able to do some classic book reading. I forget how much fun really reading is if I don’t do it often. Not only is it more enjoyable than reading online. But I found I got more useful information out of it too.
And I’m grateful that I’ve been able to keep my writing skills sharp and even push them forward. I’ve had to up my game. Making my writing sharper. More refined. Make my arguments better and better presented. This does at least feel valuable. But I wish someone would give me feedback on my work. I have no idea if what I’m doing is any good or not.
Was this worth it? No. I feel the artworld has been lessened in my eyes. I’ve been unguided. Overworked. My worldview has gone unchallenged. I’ve been distracted from my real work. And this hasn’t helped me grow as an artist at all.
The only part that has been useful is revisiting reading books and having to improve my writing game. But both of those things could have been put in a much better course.
I can’t shake the feeling these courses aren’t being done for the student’s benefit but for the ego of the teaching staff. I didn’t learn anything of value here. And this is probably the most art focused course on offer. I can’t imagine how redundant the next course will be.
John's Learning Journal 