A.T.T.I.T.U.D

De Duve, Thierry. “When Form Has Become Attitude – And Beyond” Ed. Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. pp.19-31.

Thierry de Duve in his essay “When Form Has Become Attitude – And Beyond” discusses the changes of teaching curriculums throughout the modern (and subsequently post-modern) era with particular emphasis on institutional models presented by the ‘Academy’ and the break from tradition via the avant-garde through the ‘Bauhaus’ and the ‘Black Mountain School’. It is worth noting that de Duve’s critique is firmly rooted in pedagogy and claims that both these teaching models are now obsolete.[1]

De Duve also claims that what he has presented is merely a caricature, ‘of the postulates underlying the teaching of art up until recent years.’ [2] Additionally, his criticism of the two schools is that they failed under the flag of modernism to produce any artists worthy of note[3]. However, it is worth considering the political and socio-economic context under which the new teaching methods and philosophies of these schools have come to be. The Bauhaus was formed in 1919 after Germany was defeated in World War 1. Consequently the school was formed in a harsh economic climate, at the height of modernism and in a period of massive industrialisation. The Black Mountain College practically rose out of the ashes of the Bauhaus after it was pressured to close in 1933 due to the Nazi regime, with some of its teachers after fleeing Europe, going on to teach at the school.

The motivations for breaking with tradition and riding the coat tails of the avant-garde were not so much as to produce masters in the field of the arts, but to operate as a collective to push forward new ideologies, which although technically were rooted in the perfection of crafts, were motivated with the inclusion of all art forms, of which architecture and industrial design were profoundly successful in their influence to this day.

In light of these schools developments, the rejection of tradition was a necessary step in order to move forward and thus provided a model for modernism. As we unconsciously slipped into the new era of post-modernism the question was posed, whether modernism had failed?[4] And where does this leave the soldiers of the new art schools? The idea of talent, as if an artist has been touched by the hand of god, is as dubious as the idea of creativity, that everyone is an artist[5]. Coupled with conceptualism’s attempt at dematerialising the art object thus removing art as a commodity[6], we now live in an era where in terms of what can be considered art, almost anything goes. Therefore it has become necessary for the art school to evolve accordingly, with theory (historical, psychoanalytical etc.) being an ideal canon, not just in terms of teaching, but also in regards to 'arts' engagement with the market. The institution has become not just in the field of fine art but across many vocations a form of quality control. Let’s not forget that art is a business and often a lucrative one at that.

With thanks to Helen Clark as Minister for Arts and Culture from 1999 to 2008, providing a much needed boost to New Zealand’s arts and culture, our art schools now arguably boast the most art students this country has ever seen. Adding to students fees, the potential for government funding according to an artist’s reputation in the form of PBRF’s, (a tongue in cheek example of which can be seen in Dane Mitchells recent bid to sell his PBRF’s to the highest bidding institution on Trade Me) the institution can effectively operate as an enterprise of which can provide the artist as teacher the means of an income and the ability to engage in research to support their practice without the need to rely on the art market for their own remuneration and this is regardless of the student’s outcome after graduation. However it is in the best interests of the institution to provide a good model of education through successful graduates to appear attractive to prospective students and practitioners engaged in research.

In terms of a fine arts curriculum, I have the utmost respect for any person who is willing to educate people in a field which is largely a big can of worms. And however loosely De Duve has diagnosed the issues with art education without promise of a cure, would whole heartedly agree with his premise ‘that the first thing to do was patiently to reconstitute a community of good artists who love art, who respect each other and their students, and who take their tasks as transmitters seriously[7].’ After all the people we meet in art school, students and lecturers alike, are our peers and essentially will be the people who will create the foundations for the future of art and education.

---

[1] P. 22 De Duve, Thierry. “When Form Has Become Attitude – And Beyond” Ed. Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. pp.19-31.

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Gablick, Suzi. “Has Modernism Failed?” New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, 1984. 1^st ed.

[5] P.26 De Duve, Thierry. “When Form Has Become Attitude – And Beyond” Ed. Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. pp.19-31.

[6] Lippard, Lucy R. "Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966-1927; cross-reference book of information on some aesthetic boundaries ...” New York, Praeger, 1973.

[7] P. 31 De Duve, Thierry. “When Form Has Become Attitude – And Beyond” Ed. Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. pp.19-31.