art, artists and general education

8/13/2019 Art, Artists and General Education

1/30

Art, Artists, and General EducationAuthor(s): John AlfordSource: College Art Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Winter, 1954), pp. 67-95Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/773511

Accessed: 24/09/2009 04:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

College Art Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to College Art

Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/773511?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/773511?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/30

Whydo I teachart? Canartbe taught n college?Can t be taughtat all?Everyonenvolved in collegeartteaching s at one time or anotherplaguedbythesequestions.JohnAlford, who beganthe presentpaperas a contributionto the Rickeysymposium,published n ourlast issue,has expandedhis inquiryin orderto studythe relationof collegeart teachingto the largerproblemofliberal education versus technical-professional ducation. His argument iscloselyreasonedandwill demandyour ull attention,but this thoughtfulexami-nationof the problem s well worthreading-and reflection.

ART, ARTISTS, AND GENERALEDUCATIONJohn Alford

IT HE expansionof curriculan "practical rt"in colleges and universitieswithin the past quarter-centuryas raisedmanyproblemsof academicadmin-istration,of educational heory,and of relationshipswithin the College Art

Association,about all of which a good deal has alreadybeen written and agreatdealmorewill certainlybe heardwithin the next few years.The purposeof this paperis the limited one of examiningpresentpracticesn the light ofcertainaspectsof the theoryof "generaleducation."Practicecoursesin college art departmentsmay be conceivedas servingquite distinguishableends. In the firstplace, they may be regardedas an aidto the balanceddevelopmentof "the whole man"; as a patternof sensuous,imaginativeand motor activitiesof a kind that has particularvalues in aculture that imposesas high a degree of intellectualand behavioralroutineas that of our currentcivilization.Though "the whole man" is also a sym-

67





67





67





67





67





67





67





67





67


3/30


4/30


5/30


6/30


7/30


8/30


9/30


10/30


11/30


12/30

ART, ARTISTS, AND GENERAL EDUCATION 77is explicitly stated by Frank Lloyd Wright as the conceptual theme of hisarchitecture. Both themes-indeed all three- are patent in the gently ironic artof Klee. In the mobiles of Calder the relation of "mechanism" and "organism"is also treated with humor. In the work of Arp the stress is on "organic order"and "chance." These references could be multiplied.But what is most characteristic of the creative art of this century is the









Leger: The Scaffolding, 1919. Philadelphia Museum of Art.eger: The Scaffolding, 1919. Philadelphia Museum of Art.eger: The Scaffolding, 1919. Philadelphia Museum of Art.eger: The Scaffolding, 1919. Philadelphia Museum of Art.eger: The Scaffolding, 1919. Philadelphia Museum of Art.eger: The Scaffolding, 1919. Philadelphia Museum of Art.eger: The Scaffolding, 1919. Philadelphia Museum of Art.eger: The Scaffolding, 1919. Philadelphia Museum of Art.eger: The Scaffolding, 1919. Philadelphia Museum of Art.

intense value attached to subjectivity as an authentication of "self-hood"against the pressures of systematized thinking and mechanically regulatedbehavior.

To affirm, as I think we must, that this protest is well conceived andfelt, in no way disposes of our problem. Whatever value is attached to thehard core of the "I," both by immediate circumstances and by inherentnature we are members of a society. This does not mean that we must accept,


















13/30


14/30

Marcel Duchamp: Le Passage de la Vierge d la Mariee, 1912. Museum of Modern Art, New.York.Max Ernst: Woman, Old Man and Flower, 1923-1924. Museum of Modern Art, New York.










15/30


16/30


17/30


18/30

ART, ARTISTS, AND GENERAL EDUCATION 83RT, ARTISTS, AND GENERAL EDUCATION 83RT, ARTISTS, AND GENERAL EDUCATION 83RT, ARTISTS, AND GENERAL EDUCATION 83RT, ARTISTS, AND GENERAL EDUCATION 83RT, ARTISTS, AND GENERAL EDUCATION 83RT, ARTISTS, AND GENERAL EDUCATION 83RT, ARTISTS, AND GENERAL EDUCATION 83RT, ARTISTS, AND GENERAL EDUCATION 83icons of all pre-Hellenic civilizations on the other; they are concerned, thatis to say, with the relation of the continuing processes of life to the vasterproblematic universe in which the human drama is set. To whatever degreethis reading of "modern" art is correct, the creative artist of this century isthe prophet in our wilderness, and the figure of speech is more apt thanreassuring.The third and most universal of the identified characteristics of modernart-its personalism-is a limiting condition of its creation and acceptanceas "art," rather than an inherent theme of its imagery. Indeed, that he dis-regards "people" as subjects, and that his images are "inhuman," are amongthe most frequent accusations made against the "modern" painter and sculptor.The facts on which the charges are based are patent enough. Non-objectiveart dispenses entirely with the human figure and, excepting the "beautifuldolls" of Matisse, the schematic figures of the major artists of our timesare neither agreeable, individualized, nor ideal. Whether this can be heldagainst the artist is another question. The cultural complex with which muchof this paper has been concerned has left little room for images of "the wholeman" or of "the whole condition of man," which are the basic themes ofhumanist art. Even Picasso, themostpowerfuland obsessedhuman-..st . .p u Kfee: Twittering Machine, 1922. Museum ofist among living artists, is at suc- Modern Art.cessiveor alternatingperiodsof his

and biology, a nostalgic classicist,and a tragic satirist of contemporaryhistory, with as variable a symbolicvocabulary and as many divergent" tyles" as there are themes in hisrepertory. There is, of course,method in this madness. But it is themethod of a unique and proteanpersonality, not of a public sys-tem.

Picasso, Matisse and Rouaultapart, the major artists of the pres-

icons of all pre-Hellenic civilizations on the other; they are concerned, thatis to say, with the relation of the continuing processes of life to the vasterproblematic universe in which the human drama is set. To whatever degreethis reading of "modern" art is correct, the creative artist of this century isthe prophet in our wilderness, and the figure of speech is more apt thanreassuring.The third and most universal of the identified characteristics of modernart-its personalism-is a limiting condition of its creation and acceptanceas "art," rather than an inherent theme of its imagery. Indeed, that he dis-regards "people" as subjects, and that his images are "inhuman," are amongthe most frequent accusations made against the "modern" painter and sculptor.The facts on which the charges are based are patent enough. Non-objectiveart dispenses entirely with the human figure and, excepting the "beautifuldolls" of Matisse, the schematic figures of the major artists of our timesare neither agreeable, individualized, nor ideal. Whether this can be heldagainst the artist is another question. The cultural complex with which muchof this paper has been concerned has left little room for images of "the wholeman" or of "the whole condition of man," which are the basic themes ofhumanist art. Even Picasso, themostpowerfuland obsessedhuman-..st . .p u Kfee: Twittering Machine, 1922. Museum ofist among living artists, is at suc- Modern Art.cessiveor alternatingperiodsof his

























19/30


20/30


21/30


22/30


23/30


24/30


25/30


26/30


27/30


28/30


29/30


30/30

art, artists and general education

Documents