Professor Michelli

Required set book:

Jonathan Fineberg, Art Since 1940, Strategies of Being (3rd ed), Prentiss Hall, 2011

BRING THIS BOOK TO CLASS

Introduction

In the west, as the centuries have passed, art's function as a commentator on life has become increasingly apparent. This commentary has been presented through subject matter, certainly, but it has also invoked the intellect, senses and emotions with increasing power through style, technique, challenge, paradox. This is made possible through Europe's long cultural history that embraced Classicism before Christianity, that retained Catholicism alongside Protestantism, and that incorporated the Industrial Revolution into an aristocratic society. Artists served the Church, the (aristocratic) State, and also the new leisured Bourgeoisie - of which they were an integral part. They expressed the issues of all these social groups, which included themselves.

Contrast this with America, which was formed by Protestant Christians, disenfranchised exiles, and businessmen just as Romanticism was at its height. This context produces a very particular attitude towards art. Romanticism privileges the experience, feelings and natural intuition of the individual at the expense of elaborate intellect and symbolism which have to be learned from an elite education system. But (Puritan) Protestantism has only a limited approval for these values, and this shows in its profound mistrust of art: not only is it forbidden by the 2nd Commandment, but its appeal to the senses can subvert morality, and its appeal to the mind can subvert social rectitude. In effect, then, artists must make every effort to ensure that their products are easily understood and also avoid being unChristian, depraved, or anarchic. Business, on the other hand, has no moral or social problem with art - but it has no use for it either, except (significantly) as a speculative financial investment. The only justification art has consistently had in America is narrative. It can "tell" us what people and things look like, but it can only do this by minimizing style, intellectual complexity and visual experiment. But American artists must work, and this is how they have been consistently "used".

Arguably, the artists have been hijacked and used in the support of a morally bankrupt infrastructure. By limiting the scope and burying the significance of the artists' language, this invisible infrastructure silenced the artists where they were most needed to speak. But artists have a historic purpose and drive to express those things we need to be reminded of, pleasant or unpleasant, and they have found a way to do this by sliding a new concept in under the collective radar. What is this new concept, and how has it changed what artists do? Do we know how to recognize it, and how does this affect our personal and collective responses (both reactive and consequential)? Where did this new concept come from? Is the artists' "message" different in kind as a result of it, or is it merely expressed differently?

Fineberg says that theory and explanations neutralize experience. That, in fact, undermines the very purpose of art. But it is part of our brief to discuss, explain and develop theories about this material. Yet it would be a pity to lose the immediacy of the experience so we will take advantage of the many exhibitions in our three galleries. We will attend the opening receptions and meet the artists, and we will engage directly with their work and then … because we must … we will consider how they and their work connect (or not) with the ideas emerging from our studies.