Lately I’ve been wondering — do artists still have deep thoughts like in the olden days? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Sing along to the tune of Sam Cooke’s “Wonderful World”

Don’t know much about his-tow-ri
Don’t know much about fe-la-so-fe
Don’t know much about assteticks book
Don’t know much about thos tests I took

But I do know that my art is kool
And if I keep clear of a golden rule
What a wonderful artist I be

Don’t know much about row-ko-ko-ko
Don’t know much about pea-ka-ah-so
Don’t know much about art the-o-ri
or even how to burn a dvd

But I do know that my art is hip
So don’t you go givin me no lip
bout what a confounded artist I be

Now I don’t claim to be a Saatchi Artist
But I am aiming to be
So maybe if i be a Saatchi Artist baby
I can get some big bucks for me

Don’t know much about his-tow-ri
Don’t know much about fe-la-so-fe
Don’t know much about assteticks book
Don’t know much about those tests I took

But I do know that I love kool
And I know that kool loves me too
Oh what an awesome artist I be


(shouting) Hey! Are there any big ideas out there?

When I was in school we got BAs instead of BFAs, and art majors minored in philosophy. We had hours of spontaneous discussions based on big ideas. We were aware of style but only spoke of it with reference to the concepts it held. You can talk about style in the art world in the same way you talk about style in shoes. I am sure that there are brilliant professors at FIT who could go on for hours about philosophy and style. Well I’m not talking about that. That’s real style — not fashion. I’m talking about “ What Not To Wear”. If you listen to that show I promise that you will never encounter a single deep thought. Unfortunately the show is pretty much like an undergraduate painting critique gone wrong.

I tell my students this: “If you want to think seriously about art, you first need to have a philosophy of life and a theology or anti-theology to match. This can then be followed by something like an aesthetic or stylistic philosophy. If you want to believe that the world began with a prime mover— then you must follow through with everything that this kind of thinking logically entails. If you believe there is a god and you believe that your God is perfect — then she must know everything that is, was and will be — and if this is true you must come to grips with the concept of predestination. You should probably choose either the Hindu (see Indra’s Web), Augustinian or Calvinist version.” I then ask this question of my students, “If this God can stand at the pearly gates and identify good and evil - - should she not be equally competent at identifying with exactness the natures of beauty, ugly, true, false and art or not art?”

I could frankly give a shit whether or not my students believe in god. I present this idea because it opens the doors to some of the most fundamental questions that artists must resolve before going on to questions like “What is the nature of art?” If you are a Thomist, that question might initiate one line of thinking — if you are an existentialist you must go down a different path to answer that same question.

Can you be a postmodernist and a Christian at the same time? Can I be an existentialist and think of perfection in the same context as a positivist? Can a Taoist believe in beauty without reference to ugly? Can you follow Foucault and still speak in the same way about line, shape and color? Can form continue to stand supreme with regard to content? Is it fair for me to assume that my students want to communicate……to inform….to express….. to know? Is there really anything to teach if there is no longer a “way”??? And if you don’t like the way things are going —— do you really believe it is possible to return? To what? To modernism? Yea, I wish…. but I don’t think so.
I am starting to think that Modernism was just a nice dream that I had. Did you have it too? It did seem like a good dream at the time. Boy could I get excited about talking about the absence of hierarchical forms in Stella. It was just a good narcotic that made me feel smart when really I wasn’t.

I could think of an argument for a “big idea” that would give apology to Murakami, Koons or Damian Hirst — but you don’t hear much discussion about things like that — do you?
You hear mostly about style — as in shoes.

beginagain!


Tom Nakashima 5/28/09

(shouting) Hey! Are there any big ideas out there?

When I was in school we got BAs instead of BFAs, and art majors minored in philosophy. We had hours of spontaneous discussions based on big ideas. We were aware of style but only spoke of it with reference to the concepts it held. You can talk about style in the art world in the same way you talk about style in shoes. I am sure that there are brilliant professors at FIT who could go on for hours about philosophy and style. Well I’m not talking about that. That’s real style — not fashion. I’m talking about “ What Not To Wear”. If you listen to that show I promise that you will never encounter a single deep thought. Unfortunately the show is pretty much like an undergraduate painting critique gone wrong.

I tell my students this: “If you want to think seriously about art, you first need to have a philosophy of life and a theology or anti-theology to match. This can then be followed by something like an aesthetic or stylistic philosophy. If you want to believe that the world began with a prime mover— then you must follow through with everything that this kind of thinking logically entails. If you believe there is a god and you believe that your God is perfect — then she must know everything that is, was and will be — and if this is true you must come to grips with the concept of predestination. You should probably choose either the Hindu (see Indra’s Web), Augustinian or Calvinist version.” I then ask this question of my students, “If this God can stand at the pearly gates and identify good and evil - - should she not be equally competent at identifying with exactness the natures of beauty, ugly, true, false and art or not art?”

I could frankly give a shit whether or not my students believe in god. I present this idea because it opens the doors to some of the most fundamental questions that artists must resolve before going on to questions like “What is the nature of art?” If you are a Thomist, that question might initiate one line of thinking — if you are an existentialist you must go down a different path to answer that same question.

Can you be a postmodernist and a Christian at the same time? Can I be an existentialist and think of perfection in the same context as a positivist? Can a Taoist believe in beauty without reference to ugly? Can you follow Foucault and still speak in the same way about line, shape and color? Can form continue to stand supreme with regard to content? Is it fair for me to assume that my students want to communicate……to inform….to express….. to know? Is there really anything to teach if there is no longer a “way”??? And if you don’t like the way things are going —— do you really believe it is possible to return? To what? To modernism? Yea, I wish…. but I don’t think so.
I am starting to think that Modernism was just a nice dream that I had. Did you have it too? It did seem like a good dream at the time. Boy could I get excited about talking about the absence of hierarchical forms in Stella. It was just a good narcotic that made me feel smart when really I wasn’t.

I could think of an argument for a “big idea” that would give apology to Murakami, Koons or Damian Hirst — but you don’t hear much discussion about things like that — do you?
You hear mostly about style — as in shoes.

beginagain!


Tom Nakashima 5/28/09