Let me take you back to the start of college. I decided quite last minute in high school that I wanted to major in film when I went to college. I looked for a decent film school and I sat in my first class fairly confident in my abilities. The teacher walked in, thoroughly intimidated the class by going over how difficult the tests would be and by saying that only 1/3 of the class would pass, but I still felt confident that I would be part of that third. But then the dreaded words came. The class was a theory class and had nothing to do with hands on filmmaking. I thought I was going to have a mini panic attack. I somehow entered college thinking that if you major in filmmaking, you just made films. I was wrong, and to my detriment.
You see, I’ve never had an interest in art history. I know, I know, everyone can now take a moment to let their mouths drop in shock and think slightly less of me because I don’t know all of the birthdays of the most influential filmmakers. The truth is, I don’t have a mind for it. That type of information goes in one ear and out the other. I tried my hardest throughout college to retain information like that, and I don’t think I could repeat back to you more than the most basic information about any director that we studied.
Fast forward 3 years. I graduate college with a degree in film (the production degree, I might add). The entire time I was in college I heard from the students who followed the theory track that to be a successful director I would have to know history. To be honest, the thought scared me. Certainly there were some things I was interested in, but for the most part not only did it not pique my interest, I just couldn’t remember it no matter how many times I reviewed my flash cards. So, three years later and I’ve literally retained almost nothing from my theory classes. I only knew how to shoot films, practically. I pick up my still camera, I leave filmmaking behind, and I feel confident all over again that I will be able to push forward in the photography world.
It didn’t occur to me that I would need to be proficient in art history to be a photographer. It never occurred to me until I was told by others that you had to know the history of your profession in order to be successful. I have always been of the opinion that the only thing someone needs to be successful is a belief in what they are doing. I am certainly not saying that it is a hindrance to know art history in any way; on the contrary, I think it could be helpful in finding inspiration and shaping your own art. It can also make people more aware of the context in which their art fits, and consequently put more meaning into the art. It can help with marketing as well to understand the different trends in the art market.
However, as it is, I still have no background in art history. I love going to museums and looking at art. I read the little information cards next to the pieces, I enjoy it while I’m there, and yet I always leave the museum having retained nothing but a vague memory of what I had seen, and nothing of what I had read. My brain doesn’t work that way, though I often wish it did (especially for making college easier!). I am inspired by many paintings, by different styles of work, by different artists. But I beg the question, does knowing the names of those artists really have any influence on my art? Do people want me to learn this information so that it can help my art, or is it to simply be able to throw names out in conversations at gallery exhibitions? Simply because I am not well versed in art history does not mean that my art is suffering. On the contrary, to me it means that my art is original, that it is a direct representation of my mind and what I want to create. I am not interested in the details of history but instead shaping the future.
I am hugely aware that my photographs that are influenced by history. Right now as I write this I have thoughts of my new Ophelia series stirring in the back of my mind. Those images are partially inspired by history, by the art movement of the Pre-Raphealites, by the female stereotype and human condition. So yes, even the art of someone who is a self-diagnosed art history square is influenced by certain aspects of our past. However, I am drawn to those aspects of our past because there are strong connections to my art. Before knowing anything about the story of Ophelia I was sketching underwater images that I thought of taking of a girl lying dead under the water. My links to the past have been encouraged by google image searches of my own ideas. I only found out about the Pre-Raphaelite painters because I wanted to make my images look more painterly and I wanted to find a practical source of inspiration to mimic brush strokes.
Art should come from within a person. It feels so natural to me that creating the imagery is like breathing, it makes me feel complete. If I find a part of history relevant to my work I will study it. I have great respect for those who are interested in art history and I would not want this to be taken the wrong way. I simply cannot agree that learning art history is a necessity to achieving success as an artist.
{ 8 } Comments
Totally agree with what you wrote here and relate to it in almost every way.Names, dates and information have never stuck in my brain only the feeling I get when I view something for the first time.
I see the image I want to create and then research it to the death.It generally turns out how first envisioned, but I stumble across some amazing stuff along the way..(just don’t ask me their names)I generally save everything to my stumble upon favourites so at least I can find them again! Art history details are important to some people and how they work but if that’s not how you retain information then it can be detrimental to your process by stressing you out.Continue learning at your own pace as a result of your own ideas and you will continue to love what you do.
Also a lot of it is name dropping around the wine and cheese :)
I can totally understand, i have a Television Production degree after 3 years of making about 10 videos and about 100 essays on theory, media and advertising. I have never used that degree once, I finished it off knowing i was loosing interest fast. Now i am getting my love back for cameras (both still and short videos) but my job is in the pet industry.
I love visiting galleries but if i dont write down the name of the piece and the artist I will have forgotten them by the time i get home, last time i tried to do that i got my pen confiscated by the guard. Did he think i was going to grafitti it or something?!
I enjoyed your take on this! I suppose my brain just does work like this. I’d be happy to major in film history and wouldn’t care too much about the production side of things – I just can’t remember technical stuff, but the history fascinates me! And to me, remembering the names and dates is a nonissue – if something inspires and grabs me, I will remember the name and era. At museums that I’ve been to a number of times, I will revisit my favorite pieces time and time again, and the image is what stays with me. Once I’ve seen it several times and thought about it, I will probably remember the artist and I might want to look them up to know more about them. Certainly just memorizing facts for the sake of doing so is not the point to me. I’ve learned a bit about Modigliani for example because his paintings – tucked into a corner of the modern art room next to Picassos and Matisse’s at LACMA – are so emotive, delicate, and skillful. To me, the famous artists, directors, etc. are given import only by whether they continue to inspire, amuse, entertain, etc. I don’t give a damn about Jeff Koons because his work is entirely uninspiring to me. But what makes a painting special or museum-worthy? In some cases, not much. But in others, it is simply the fact that each piece – or artist – has the elusive ability to make many viewers feel something. I am interested in watching movies by acclaimed directors or seeing exhibits by famous artists only because if they are generally considered to be inspiring or special, perhaps they will catch my imagination too. These artists have captured the imaginations of others, so perhaps they will show me something unique and valuable about the human condition or the world or the nature of beauty. But I would never say I liked an artist more just because they were famous, and I also wouldn’t devalue a lesser known artist. Above all, I think that there is never one way to go about things. There will always be highly trained people will no skill and amateurs with no training who excel. Actors who’ve never taken a single class and do brilliantly and those who spend years studying and will never be good.
I’m so glad I read this, I haven’t visited your blog since it was a different layout…? I always appreciate your posts. They are so insightful, helpful and reassuring!
I took art history classes my first year in college and I got a C-. I was desperate and exhausted at the end, and all I remember was memorizing the dates of things like stonehenge and the Renaissance paintings! Humanities equipped me with the best background on art, such as the feelings it evoked and *how* the artist evoked those feelings through their canvas… That was the only ‘art history’ I really appreciated/retained. I’ve noticed you include such words underneath your art as well, and I think you understand it better than any art history teacher at these universities….
I heard once that there’s two types of readers. There’s the people that really read each and every word, concentrate tremendously on the words chosen and notice each comma, each period, each tiny nuance the writer took to form his prose. And there’s the others that read sentences in a blur of words, concentrating more on the imagery and atmosphere that it creates as a whole, instead of focusing on each word. Both are entirely valid of course, and one isn’t smarter than the other at all. It’s just different ways of feeling art. These pretentious art history fanatics are a dime a dozen at any film school, design school or any other creative school really, and most of the time they are just hiding behind it. It’s close enough to the subject they love to keep themselves satisfied without the risk and insecurity and boldness that comes with actually going out and creating something new and yours.
When I was a photojournalism student Art History was required and I thought of it as a burden. I’m a photographer and photojournalists don’t do art, I believed at the time. And then I found the class to be one of the most fascinating I took in four years. I hardly remember a damn thing (other than a few toss-off names for paintings like Venus on the Half Shell) but I’m sure I learned from it and in some way was influenced by it.
understanding the history of art has two purposes: to let us know whether someone that came before us did what we are doing. and to give us ideas about how to make it our own.
Those who can–do. Those who can’t–teach. H.L. Mencken
Recently saw your work in Blue Canvas at the local Barnes and Noble. I rushed to the register to buy the magazine. You are an original. One day, some student will have to memorize your name!
Post a Comment