Art Professors Talk ‘Gown and Gown’

Attending the College Art Assocation’s 99th Anniversary Convention

New York—The history of higher education is littered with colorful stories of “town and gown” conflicts, disagreements between boisterous college campuses and their staid communities (or between the academic ivory tower and the village marketplace). At the recent annual meeting of the College Art Association (CAA) in New York City, it was charming to see that a parallel “gown and gown” contest is alive and well among college art educators. Of course, the annual CAA event (Feb. 9-12) offered a great diversity of top-flight panel sessions, receptions, chances for job shopping and interviews, and a book fair. Yet one resounding theme seemed to carry across the four days of frantic diversity: the happy disagreements between object-based art and Conceptual Art.
            Here’s a sampling of the gown and gown exchanges over object-based art and the rising dominance of conceptualism in contemporary art:

            ▪ At the session on “The Crisis in Art History,” the discussion often aimed at how today’s generation of students believe that art history began a few years ago, or as one speaker suggested, “since the last tweet.” Of course, teaching art history has benefited from the new technologies: beautiful images can be seen on computer screens and voluminous art history encyclopedias can be scanned for facts. However, this high-tech sensibility may also be eroding appreciation for the slower, tactile appreciation of older mediums, from stone and oil paint on down the line. Not everyone on the panel agreed with the term “crisis”—preferring to list “problems.” However, it was a consensus that even among the humanities on campus, art history is getting less prestige and less funding. The solution seems to be to get the “town” excited about art objects (their history and seeing them in museums). Excitement in the town (the public) may generate more profile for art history among the university gowns.

            ▪ The sellers of art materials were at the CAA in full force. They also held a panel session (“Artists and the Art Materials Industry”), inquiring into why art departments (and their students) are not fascinated by the material culture of art: its chemistry, techniques, and tools. For the average art student, of course, it’s usually budget. They will buy the cheap paint and paper when they have the choice. However, a more philosophical reason was also raised at the well-attended session. At a time when contemporary art means “conceptual art,” the art object has become downgraded. To focus on the art object and its material properties, it was argued, is to risk being accused of crass capitalism, even oppression, since modern art theory attributes so many historical sins to objects d’ art. When these ideological issues arose, the passions grew stronger. These teachers love their materials!
            ▪ For passion, however, two sessions on “foundation” issues in art schools and art departments served up still livelier menus ("Introducing Postmodern Thought” and “Studio Art in CAA's Next Century”). In first year Foundation courses, the goal is to give young artists the basics, basics that will last a lifetime. At this level, skill and studio training (and perhaps mastery of materials) would seem very important. However, according to some voices, conceptual art is again undercutting this kind of more traditional approach. As a consolation, it was pointed out that the art world has entered a kind of “post-postmodern” stage (less ideologically rigid), and also that students and the public still respond positively to displays of traditional art skills (even if some art professors, tenured during the Conceptual Art boom, do not agree).

            ▪ A final example of the “gown and gown” dustup over art came at the vastly attended session on “What Is Visual Studies? An Open Forum,” in which twelve articulate experts participated. The denouement came, however, when Intel research scientist Tim Mattson, who does visual research, explained friendly enough that art theorists may have lost the ability to talk with empirical scientists. When a scientist speaks of an “image,” Mattson said, it is well defined: say, a rectangle made up of a finite number of color pixels. However, for the denizens of Visual Studies, an “image” is nearly indefinable, or at least so fluid in its definitions that the language becomes more akin to poetry or psychoanalysis. It was a rather striking exchange of views at this fascinating CAA panel—and proof that the “modern” and the “postmodern” are still trying to communicate with each other in the visual arts.