a few comments -
pixar has a long line of enjoyable and entertaining, and witty and clever,
works that have stood multiple viewings (with my kids). Many things that I
have seen in galleries and museums and cinemas under the banner of art are
none of the above.
should museums be showing works that are easily accessable elsewhere?
Preferably not, but then should they be hosting fashion exhibitions and be
charging 20 dollars to get in, following art world trends, be influenced by
commercial and financial considerations, etc, which are much bigger issues,
and like high and low art, never simple nor clear cut.
Art (and artist) are terms that fluctuate culturally and historically, mean
different things ad have different values at different times. One could look
at artists (Giotto, Reubens, Warhol) also as working for someone else's
profits and power (whatever the personal gains that they made), and also
look at the art world's mythology of success, and why it might not be in the
student's best interest to buy into it, and also look into the art world's
mythologies of high and low art.
There are worse jobs in the world than being a Pixar animator, and if that
is what someone wants to do, then good luck to them, maybe they'll be
contributing to another enjoyable pixar film, and/or gain some technical
knowledge and do something hip and subversive on their own time….
just my 2 cents worth.
—– Original Message —–
From: "mark cooley" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:50 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: The sadness of the dream of Pixar.
> i'm sympathetic with the view that students are shortchanging themselves.
> it's nice to see patrick sum up a lot of the frustrations i have as a
> teacher, and sad to see that the pixar flu is an epidemic (one would like
> to think that it's only at one's own school and the grass is somehow
> greener, or a little less well rendered at least, somewhere else). i do
> think that it is important not to revert to modernist assumptions of high
> and low art and to judge Pixaritis on such a basis (although it is
> tempting at times). that's why i'm happy to see that patrick commenting
> on the mythologies of success (in pixar terms) and why it might not be in
> the student's best interest (regardless of the hype) to even think twice
> about working as a human machine for someone elses profit. The sad fact
> is that many art students don't care about being artists and much of my
> time in the classroom is spent assuming that they do want to be artists.
> hence, the frustration.
> patrick lichty wrote:
>> My colleagues and I went to see Chronicles of Narnia last night, and I
>> thought more about this converstation.
>> The sadness of all this is that the students are aspiring to be people
>> who create someone else's vision.
>> This is what I feel is the tragedy of it all. To me, being an artist
>> about generating your own ideas, vision, etc. It isn't about
>> someone else's. I'm not talking about the Modernist view of the
>> artist-as-genius, but I am talking about the functional difference
>> between being a generator of ideas and merely an agent of realization.
>> One requires a lot more thought than the other.
>> In the US, kids are taught to want to learn just what they need to
>> to get a job. This is where Postman was so right about Technopoly.
>> Results-based learning gears expectations to be complacent with the
>> pigeonhole, more or less. The problem is that they don't tell the
>> that the pigeonhole could be eliminated by outsourcing, market
>> pressures, or any number of factors that could cause a bottom-line
>> conscious corporation to 'shift its human resource requirements' for
>> number of reasons, including the hiring of more creative people from
>> global labor pools in the future. The dream of Pixar is short term,
>> tems of the students.
>> Some will say that the idea is to get them into industry so they can
>> start getting experience so they can rise to the point where they can
>> have creative freedom.
>> I understand we all have to eat. However, then why the hell are you
>> going to art school? To merely master a set of perceptual and
>> realization skills so you can actualize them LATER? This makes no
>> to me. Why are you going to an art school than going to a technical
>> The dream of Pixar:
>> 1: Short-term
>> 2: Driven by corporate entertainment media cash
>> 3: Results-driven (productivity of 'creative' entertainment media that
>> judges its merit on market success)
>> 4: short-changes the individuality/vision of the artist,
>> 5: Subjugates students to an unstable/uncertain corporate media
>> production paradigm.
>> 6: Is intellectually bereft / discourages critical engagement /
>> discourages thought/reflection to emphasize entertainment.
>> 7: Is elitist as a high art paradigm, but Pixar's elitism is driven by
>> the industrial/entertainment sector, not high culture. You still have
>> to have the same sorts of levels of validation, which are also
>> hard to pass.
>> It's as if the students were going to extraordinary lengths not to
>> think, when they might actually find it easier to do so.
>> Pick your poison.
>> I can come up with a few more, I'm sure.
> -> post: firstname.lastname@example.org
> -> questions: email@example.com
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php