The Summer Slump

Tracy Singer and Laura Boyce sparkle away at the Cranbrook 4th of July party. Photograph by Erin Sweeny

The new post, The Summer Slump, is up on the art:21 blog today. It takes a look at the time between an M.F.A.'s first and second years. This is a time that seems to exist in two different time signatures... the days seem to creep by, accentuating every decision and activity. Meanwhile, the next year simultaneously races closer and closer. Living in this alternate time-space presents a slew of interesting life questions. What part of your life takes precedence? How are you spending your summer?

QUIT GRAD SCHOOL

In his recent article, Quit Grad School, on the art:21 blog, Matthew Newton talks openly about the value of an M.F.A. education.

Matthew Newton, several other M.F.A. students, and I have been taking part in an experimental discussion on art education via the art:21 blog. In Quit Grad School, Matthew writes about how M.F.A. programs are primarily teaching grad students the skill of self-teaching.

He points out that, "In order to accommodate the growing curiosities of artists, art school curriculum panned backward, increasing scope of possibility while decreasing in details and determined instruction (life drawing in grad school?! Ha!). Prioritizing inclusivity over specificity, schools abandon skill for cognition, then cognition for validation, then validation for oblique encouragements. Perhaps rightly so, but the spiral of what not to teach has left us in a place where the only thing agreeable to teach is essentially how to teach one’s self."

This sounds like a great idea, but as Matthew then questions, "...if we are able to teach ourselves, what need is there for the ensconced institution of school to continue?" This is where he hits the nail on the head. What exactly is a graduate program supposed to offer us if we already have the knowhow to push our work forward? What do they promise us?

pipilotti rist

In a conversation between curator Richard Julin and artist Pipilotti Rist in the book Pipilotti Rist / Congratulations, Rist talks about the differences between work that is made one of a kind and work that is mass produced. (p. 25)

Pipilotti: Up till now most of my works were so large that they exceeded the means of private space. I am interested in spaces where people can circulate and spend time together, without them actually owning the work. My works were not produced on a large scale for strategic reasons, nor did my gallery ever force me to make smaller ones which would be easier to sell. But of course there's a big discrepancy between original and mass produced work, and as yet I've not come up with a solution to this. I'm interested in the democratic aspect of art and yet I live off it's fetishization. It's a contradiction I've not resolved and something that makes me a bit sad.

What are the merits for both types of work. Like Pipilotti, I have a hard time deciding what working method is more righteous. On one hand, the democratic nature of a mass produced artwork gives the potential to reach a larger audience; but on the other, a one of a kind, original work is more direct. Should we continue to make precious works, keeping our message more pure, but for a smaller, elite audience? Or should we adopt the methods of large mass product producing corporations in order to reach more people?