If you want to start a discussion you'll need to give a bit more. Your question is vague and (frankly) silly. Flesh it out more. What work is being shown that you don't like? What sort of work would you rather see? What are the main offenders in showing bad work? Are there any bright spots showing good work?
nothing silly about the question. and not going into detail because i'm trying to find out if i am going to have any interest in discussing from anyone.
Ok: Putting a link up and saying "discuss" Like Linda Richman isn't really a discussion.
THAT BEING SAID, For next year's CAA, I'm doing a panel called "The Culture of Dispersion - Why Contemporary art is Everywhere, Yet Nowhere At All". This has to do with the general ex/implosion of culture in light of the Long Tail/infinite niche-ing of the Net. The LA scene and the Net are two very different things, but I think that the explosive expansion of a genre and its lack of concentration are related.
But is this argument posed by Video Green the same as the last five pages of "Shock of the New", focused through Los Angeles? Isn't the profusion of MFAs the center of a proportionate devaluation of the degree, and creating the rise of the PhD in Art, which is going to become necessary, but I find the proposition of its necessity almost industrial, and in 20 years, we will need postdoc in art to distinguish excellence.
Degree inflation and its resultant effects are unfortunate, and a bit absurd.
Not sure what you are referencing Patrick, but the issue I'd like to address specifically is that L.A. is still essentially provincial. Despite the fact that we have great art museums here, you can't see current work from major New York and international artists on a regular basis. L.A. is very much cut off. A second, and to me related issue, is that the work in the galleries by L.A. artists is mostly pretty uninspiring. Does anyone out there live in L.A. or know it well enough to comment on these points?
I don't know if there's so much MFA degree inflation as degree erosion… Somehow MFA degrees have moved from a 3-year to a 2-year degree (which makes one wonder what's the real difference between an MA and a MFA in studio art).
I've never heard anyone make the claim that an art degree "distinguishes excellence". If anything, it distinguishes academicism. Shows that your comfortable with a certain approach towards art but says nothing about its quality as art.
Comments
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=10099&ttype=2
How come no ones responding?!
+++
If you want to start a discussion you'll need to give a bit more. Your question is vague and (frankly) silly. Flesh it out more. What work is being shown that you don't like? What sort of work would you rather see? What are the main offenders in showing bad work? Are there any bright spots showing good work?
etc…
nothing silly about the question. and not going into detail because i'm trying to find out if i am going to have any interest in discussing from anyone.
Ok:
Putting a link up and saying "discuss" Like Linda Richman isn't really a discussion.
THAT BEING SAID,
For next year's CAA, I'm doing a panel called "The Culture of Dispersion - Why Contemporary art is Everywhere, Yet Nowhere At All". This has to do with the general ex/implosion of culture in light of the Long Tail/infinite niche-ing of the Net. The LA scene and the Net are two very different things, but I think that the explosive expansion of a genre and its lack of concentration are related.
But is this argument posed by Video Green the same as the last five pages of "Shock of the New", focused through Los Angeles? Isn't the profusion of MFAs the center of a proportionate devaluation of the degree, and creating the rise of the PhD in Art, which is going to become necessary, but I find the proposition of its necessity almost industrial, and in 20 years, we will need postdoc in art to distinguish excellence.
Degree inflation and its resultant effects are unfortunate, and a bit absurd.
Not sure what you are referencing Patrick, but the issue I'd like to address specifically is that L.A. is still essentially provincial. Despite the fact that we have great art museums here, you can't see current work from major New York and international artists on a regular basis. L.A. is very much cut off. A second, and to me related issue, is that the work in the galleries by L.A. artists is mostly pretty uninspiring. Does anyone out there live in L.A. or know it well enough to comment on these points?
I don't know if there's so much MFA degree inflation as degree erosion… Somehow MFA degrees have moved from a 3-year to a 2-year degree (which makes one wonder what's the real difference between an MA and a MFA in studio art).
MFA issues are for another discussion.
I've never heard anyone make the claim that an art degree "distinguishes excellence". If anything, it distinguishes academicism. Shows that your comfortable with a certain approach towards art but says nothing about its quality as art.
Who knows, maybe that's the problem in LA. Too many MFA's running around thinking that their degrees make them good artists.
a-hem… 'your' = 'you're'
L.A. definitely has a glut of MFA's. I guess thats a problem. But what about the provincialism here? Where are you all from?
That's neither what I said nor what I meant (http://pallit.lhi.is/microcodes/index.php?code_id=16)
Joe = "Either that user id does not match a Rhizome user, or that user has elected to keep his/her information private."
I had noticed his user id number suggests an account that is at least a few years old. So I figure his newbie-ness is a put-on.
huh?
Can we talk about art in Los Angeles please? Where is everyone from anyway?