No Talent Required

The following is an excerpt from the website of a university art program;

What are the skills/abilities of successful students in Art?

Successful characteristics of studio artists would be: creativity, self-discipline, ambition, openness to new experience, and communication skills. Creative people do not mind the messiness of their work and do not mind making mistakes. Creative people have the ability to sustain a high level of "ambiguity" which means they do not mind being lost at times. They have an ability to risk more, to enjoy the process of their work and are not results-driven.

To begin with, the paragraph above doesn't really talk about skills at all, only certain kinds of attitudes. There may arguably be some salient points in there, but the whole thing about sustaining a "high level of ambiguity" and not being "results driven" starts to smell funny. Don't words like "discipline" and "ambition" kind of imply being "results driven", to some extent? I'm trying to think of some other segment of arts education that places as much emphasis on process over product. Music? Writing? Drama? Dance? When people experience these things, they are interested in product, not process... and the extent to which process is important is related directly to it's impact on the product.

Imagine applying to a college level music program toward a degree in performance... voice, or say, piano... and walking in without being able to demonstrate any kind of practical talent, any proficiency or natural giftedness. Imagine you were in fact tone deaf or had no sense of rhythm. How far do you think you might get?

This is one reason I'm grateful for American Idol; it does graphically - sometimes painfully - demonstrate the importance of natural giftedness, in spite of the fact that many of the auditioners really feel that they simply must sing professionally or die. It's their whole world, all their dreams hang on reaching others through the gift of song... only, tragically, they aren't able to carry a tune, even in an industrially reinforced bucket. We just don't accept that the public performance of music is primarily about self expression or "process over product". We don't much tolerate dancers who can't dance or writers who can't write. The "product" aspect of the arts is just inescapable.

This doesn't mean that a person can't make a living in the music field unless they can sing or play an instrument - they might be a brilliant composer or arranger - but they will never make a living performing, unless we truly don't mind all our musicians being along the lines of William Hung or Captain Beefheart.

One can make a living in the art field without being able to draw at all well, but then we may be talking about training in aesthetics, not art per se.

Comments

[J.R. Stoodley]

If you are trying to create a product you should be focused to a significant degree on what you are producing.

Of course, if you go below the college level to the grade school level, or on the college level if it's an art class that non-art students have to take for a liberal arts or general education requirement just to be well-rounded, that might be different. There would probably be validity in that sort of situation for the teachers and students to focus on the experience the of creating, learning to express your self visually and enjoy the process, rather than a heavy focus on the real quality of the end product. It's all in what your reason for doing art is, or so it seems to me.

[The Aesthetic Elevator]

That quote has "Art School Confidential" written all over it. Yes, there are some valid points mixed in with the slag, but we'll need an extruder from the ceramics classroom to pull them out of that stereotyped nonsense.

Much as we may disagree about certain aspects of art (theory), this one is easy to affirm. Sure, Picasso made waves with his experimentation, but he was constantly returning to basic hand eye coordination, observation. We just don't see those works because, apparently, whoever dictated the art world during his life and shortly thereafter found his cubist works more interesting, or something.

Of course, the experimentation (which the quote eludes to) IS important. It, IMO, referenced in us the image of God, in which we are created. We were born with imagination, and to stifle this as an artist is like an engineer building a building without using math.

[Tim J.]

There is certainly the very necessary kind of experimentation that should put you outside your comfort zone in trying out new techniques, etc...

Kind of like when Tiger Woods made an adjustment to his swing that he KNEW would adversely affect his game (in terms of his score) in the short run, but that he believed would make him a better player in the long run once he had mastered it. That takes guts, especially when you're playing for your living at such a high level.

[Clarke Fountain]

There is an excellent book (not capital "c" Catholic, by any means, though) called "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" that is actually not about Zen at all in any formal sense, but is entirely about how aesthetics is a common gift of humankind and that universal standards _do_ apply and almost everyone who is not blind or demented is able to see them clearly when given a chance to do so. At least part of the morass of our age is relentless presentation of chaotic ugliness or soulless high-graphic style (where it is not intentionally repellent, as with the work Francis Bacon the modern artist-not the ancient worthy). Yes! to your blog today. There should be some results expected. I had a brother who could hear music quite clearly in his head, but those listening to him play, for instance, the French Horn, hear squonks and blurps. Needless to say, he did not become a professional musician, though he enjoyed music all his life.

P.S. [a rant not entirely off topic] I suspect that it was Dali and his ilk that prompted C.S. Lewis to write the "retraining Mark Studdard" sections of "That Hideous Strength" where the reader (and Mark) learn that beauty and truth are important...but I think Bacon would have easily been among those whose works he obliquely cited, had he known of them...

[Tim J.]

"At least part of the morass of our age is relentless presentation of chaotic ugliness or soulless high-graphic style..."

Well put. Neither approaches real beauty. Of course, mere "prettiness" is also the enemy of beauty.

I was aware of "Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" when it came out, but never read it. I also blush to admit that I have not read C.S. Lewis' space trilogy... yet. I plan to, though.

Thanks for dropping by, Clarke. Come by often, the beer's always cold.

[Jim Jankengt]

When exactly did ambiguity become something to strive for in art? My impression is that the opposite of ambiquity- clarity- was a traditional goal of all art. That is not to say that much art can have various interpretations or shades of meaning but to intentionally make something unclear seems wrong. There is a fear, particularly among Christian artists, that if something is not ambiguous then it is clearly propaganda. I used to feel this way but finally realized that if I honestly wanted to paint a biblical scene then why not and make it as clear as possible. I don't think my painting something that I sincerely have strong feelings about is propaganda.

[U Know Who!]

"Thanks for dropping by, Clarke. Come by often, the beer's always cold."

Wait a minute -- Tim J. is giving out beer to all those visiting his blog?

How do I redeem one?