Art School so far

I haven't been enjoying art school. This is what I tell everyone who asks how I'm liking it. I'll admit I know I'm being a pessimist, I don't have much real reason to dislike it other than the fact that it's simply not for me. At the risk of my school seeing this, this is just a matter of personal opinion. I do dislike some of my professors, sure, but that's what the end-of-semester course surveys are for, not the World Wide Web, so I won't dwell on that here. I'm sure that my opinion on art school is based on internalized traditionalist views that art isn't a noble profession, and isn't worth going to university for, but I know consciously that both those notions are false. Society needs people who are passionate about art as a professional pursuit, but I'm not one of them. Sometimes you have to try things to recognize that they aren't for you.

My biggest takeaway from my two semesters in the arts, however, has been learning just how intellectual a pursuit art is. Understanding the broader contexts in which art exists includes history, cultural contexts, past and current movements, as well as the materials of the piece itself and the physical space it inhabits (if any). Being aware of these contexts is the first step to being able to understand them, and recognize how a piece fits into them. That process, being able to "read" a work of art, has been the biggest reward I've reaped from the last two semesters.

This intellectual depth is what many traditionalists lack in their view of art. This is how the recent decrying of "modern art" (often actually contemporary performance pieces or sculpture) ties into the rise of anti-intellectualism. The idea that a piece's value as art lies in its aesthetic quality is purposely reductionist and has proven dangerous in the past. (There's a whole other essay to be written here on landscape painting, connoisseurship of the land, Thomas Cole, and manifest destiny)

This doesn't mean I agree with every piece I see. I still find myself disagreeing with the works of artists like Donald Judd and Frank Stella (both minimalists). Even then, I can't deny that their works are, in fact, art, and have contributed to the history and wider context of art as a practice. The idea that one person or even a group of people can determine what is and isn't "real art" is the same reductionist view that strips pieces of their meaning and intellectual value. At the same time as I've been learning how to "read" pieces, I've also been learning to accept that I don't have to like or even understand every piece. 

The beauty of art is that you don't have to like every piece. There should be pieces you disagree with, despite maybe being aesthetically appealing to you, or vice versa. You should think about what you're looking at longer than it takes to simply decide if you like how it looks or not.

I decided to look at an exhibition (third-year BFA exhibition of my school, a wonderful show too) and discern the meaning of the pieces before looking at the booklet. I looked at a piece made of fabric strands in neon greens and orange, as well as light blue, among other less prominent colours. I felt incredibly triumphant when I correctly realized that those were scrubs and hi-vis workwear, and that the piece was about labour. I hope that those who denounce the validity of contemporary art can one day experience that same pride and understanding that I did. I hope they come to understand the intellectual purposes of art rather than just the aesthetic through that experience.