Everyone Should Major in Women's Studies

by Thomas

This is something I have been thinking on. I read two chapters from John Wright's book on interest groups, the first on lobbyists and the second on political action committees. I know that in the liberal world, and oftentimes in the conservative one, that the public perception is quite distrusting of the political influence that lobbyists and political action committees may gain for corporate America. Indeed John Wright dispels much of this and describes lobbyists and PAC's rather as information providers and generally expediters of the political process, bringing grass roots movements to the doorstep of the Capitol.

Novelists tell us what is impossible. Theorists tell us what may be possible at a future point. Journalists tell us what is. Historians paraphrase what was. All of this sounds good, right? I doubt too many people would disagree. I do, to an extent. My Principal Investigator once lamented, "why oh why are the theoretical biologists mapping what we already know? They should be describing what is to come!" What art theorists do is describe what happened and why it all fits together so neatly now. Art critics indeed are not practitioners in the same way that artists are. They may have a more objective standpoint (and that is debatable), however it is difficult to ascertain whether or not watching art can produce anything as new as it can describe how it came to be. Art historians describe these events with whatever slant or cued preference they choose to show. It isn't as important that they get the facts, or the ideas, as they tell a narrative that may or may not compartmentalize Duchamp into a 173 page book *with pictures*. I restate: Novelists tell us what is possible. Theorists tell us why everything in the last thirty years occurred. Journalists tell us what they want to. Historians paraphrase what they wish would have been.

This brings us back to the lobbyists. They are information providers. Art historians and art critics help the public see what is going on. Indeed, compartmentalization is a necessary process, or how would we discern what to focus. Are art historians correct? I hope not. Are art critics unbiased, undoubtedly no. However, their contribution is an extension of the artist to the viewer.

Solid points concerning context. I have trouble with some of the placement of art. As an art critic, an art journalist, Linda Weintraub could go farther and enter the artist's studio (or better yet, could view the art in a gallery painted black with all the lights off and blinds turned). That kind of approach would begin to unravel more of the artist's story.

Response to: 60s and 70s: Systems and Experiments, and Questioning Perceptions

by Thomas

This is an important question we can ask. "Which scientific experiment involving rats in mazes and mental cognition do you prefer?" I would immediately say, the experiment that tells us the best story, that explains neuronal synapse uniquely, the experiment that does not lie. Who is going to be the judge of the truth, however. What you may be saying is that we can not simply judge an experiment based on aesthetic results when indeed it is an exploration of artistic limitations. Sol LeWitt's incomplete cubes are a perfect example. Indeed, I was attempting to generate an algebraic explanation for how many incomplete boxes there are, however, it may be a topological problem. The aesthetic that an incomplete box (or a specific incomplete box) creates is what Sol LeWitt may be dealing with.

Art finds the plane of new frontiers that frighten us, bewilder us, and look either too unfitting (ugly) or too in place (pretty) for us to pass by. Here we may misunderstand the incomplete cube, the neon glow. We may not grasp the entire picture. To judge this work differently because it is experimentation is a confounding idea. Ideally, all art is an experiment. All art is a work in progress. Just as neuroscience presses forward, so, we would expect, does art. Yes, acknowledging them as trials is acceptable, but experiment for experiment's sake is not art, it is a cheapening of ideas, an insecurity (I might add) in the message/feeling/result. I do not expect a sure answer, or even an answer, as communication between artist and viewer is an ongoing and sometimes dysfunctional thing. This brings me to a world-renown composer on the faculty of University of Michigan. Apparently his students compulsively change their pieces during rehearsals. This, I found, they learn from their teacher. What are they composing, background music? Oh, yes, I had better dim the oboe here for otherwise we might not be able to enjoy the curve of the man's thigh!

Art is for the artist alone. Art is not for the artist, it is for the viewer. If the art is not for the artist, what is the artist doing? If the art is not for the viewer, what is the artist doing. Again, this expresses the funk that experiments may place on the viewer. If your aim is to lose yourself in the viewer's eye, draw them in and quietly show them everything, but carefully. If you aim to lose your viewer, blast forth everything.

"What is art?" Challenging this is not art. Challenging this is challenging this. Pushing art is art.