Dear Jerry,
Let me begin by thanking you for reviewing my book in the December issue of Arts & Activities, a magazine widely read by K–12 art teachers.
Since nothing is worse for an author than being ignored, I’m grateful for your calling attention, however critical, to Who Says That’s Art?. All the more grateful in view of the serious health problems you’ve been dealing with—not least, failing eyesight.
My thanks, too, for saying: “This is a book that deserves reading even though we may disagree with some of its conclusions.”
Given the authority and respect you’ve long enjoyed in the field of art education, however, I fear that the objections you raise in the review will disincline many teachers from bothering to read for themselves what I wrote—which is often quite different from what you suggested.
Most notably, you object that I start “with a definition of art that would preclude photography, electronic media, and most conceptual forms” and that I set about “to elevate forms that have moved [me]”—to the total exclusion of “contemporary art.”
That depends on what is meant by “contemporary art”—which is, of course, the crux of my book’s thesis.
What I in fact start with is a definition of traditional forms of “fine art”—primarily, representational painting and sculpture. Hence there is nothing “deceptively commonsensical” (as you claim) about my view that “all works of art are made with special skill and care” or that “the emotionally meaningful forms of visual art consist of two- or three-dimensional representations of actual or imagined persons, places, objects, or events.”
What I then set out to do is to analyze fundamental respects in which the various new media (including photography)—which now eclipse painting and sculpture in the realm of “contemporary art”—differ from, and are in most instances inferior to, those time-honored forms.
Thus I by no means engage merely in “outright rejection of what is ‘new’”—as you imply. To the contrary, I offer extensive evidence and reasoned arguments for my rejection of the new forms purported to be “art,” forms that have been invented over the past hundred years. Included in my evidence are statements by the inventors themselves, expressly declaring that what they were creating differed essentially from traditional fine art, and even that it therefore merited a new name. In view of such origins, it is ironic that those new forms now dominate the realm of contemporary “art.”
One of the most troubling aspects of your review is your claim that I ignore “the art of our own times.” Quite the contrary is true. Throughout the book I cite countless works from the early twentieth century to the present—albeit arguing that many of them do not qualify as art by any objective standard.
Most tellingly, the list of works you cite from among the baker’s dozen I praise in a chapter entitled “The Pleasures and Rewards of Art—Real Art, That Is” (spanning millennia of art history) is misleadingly incomplete. Oddly, you omit the 9/11 Memorial (September 11th) by Meredith Bergmann (b. 1955)—which I characterize as “a work of truly conceptual art.” Unlike postmodernist pieces of bogus “conceptual art,” it does what genuine art has always done. It embodies an idea in directly perceptible and emotionally moving form that does not require an artist’s statement or expert commentary to be understood. Can it be that you omitted it because it is in an essentially traditional, classically inspired style and therefore does not qualify as “contemporary art” in your view? If so, you are merely embracing the current artworld consensus, which my book is devoted to challenging.
In contrast with my traditionalist view, you argue: “New media and technologies have brought about new forms that have enlarged and enriched the nature of art experience.” I’d love to know which works in these “new media” have truly enriched your experience.
Based on numerous conversations and written exchanges we’ve had over the years, we’ve long recognized that we approach the crucial question of what qualifies as “contemporary art” from totally different perspectives. Yours I’d characterize as the view now dominant in the artworld—i.e., that anything created by a purported artist merits consideration as art. Mine is that unless we formulate some objective criteria for what constitutes “art,” we have no sound basis for deciding who qualifies as an “artist.”
In that context, it is worth noting that at least two contemporary artists have found considerable merit in Who Says That’s Art?, judging its conclusions to be supported by “rigorous argument” as well as “passionate conviction,” and urging that “all who are interested to find the truth about art should study it and engage with its arguments.”
Also worth mentioning is the favorable assessment of the book offered by other art educators—see Reviews and What Readers Say.
Let me close by echoing your view that what is needed is indeed “healthy dialogue and debate.” That debate should not preclude considering that the ideas and practices now prevailing in the artworld—and increasingly adopted by professors of art education and K–12 teachers—are hopelessly muddled and due for revision.
Warm regards, as ever,
Michelle
I don’t agree with many of Jerome Hausman’s criticisms of Who Says That’s Art?. He says that Michelle Kamhi does not mention the art of our own times, but she does mention it, pointing out that it exists in a cultural underground, little known by the public. He implies that she is rejecting Postmodernism because it is new and different, but she is in fact rejecting it because it is not very good. Actually it is old and familiar, being for the most part repetitions of things which were first done early last century.
He does however make some positive points that I do agree with:
He refers to Michelle Kamhi’s “deep and strongly held views” and he agrees with her about the commodification of art today.
He also says that we need not accept everything, and it follows from this that the Institutional Theory of Art is false.
I am very pleased with him for agreeing with her that we need healthy dialogue and debate and for saying: “This is a book that deserves reading even though we may disagree with some of its conclusions”. That is the best possible way to summarise this excellent book in one sentence.
John Bourne
The Stuckists
Hi Michelle,
Thank you for beginning this important conversation to move us all forward. I am beginning to learn, as an artist and art educator, that art is culture. Since culture is constantly transforming, so too is art. We, as artists, begin to use the newest technologies available to experiment and express ourselves. I believe that we are in the midst of a Renaissance and that our students will be describing for antiquity who we are today! Looking through the historical aspects of art give us the answers to our questions of how we have learned to see. Our past and future culture remind me of what Gauguin made us think about in his painting Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?.
Sincerely,
Karen
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Thanks for your thoughts, Karen, and for your reference to one of my favorite paintings (featured in the next-to-last chapter of my book)!
With respect to cultural change, it’s worth noting that the basic forms of visual art (and even the major themes of art) remained relatively constant from prehistory until the early twentieth century. They consisted of two- and three-dimensional representations (primarily, painting and sculpture). We need to ask ourselves why those basic forms survived millennia of drastic cultural change. I offer some reasons in my book.
Let me emphasize that I’m not opposed to the “new,” provided it is an improvement on the “old.” But I’ve yet to see work in the new media that surpasses accomplished work in painting and sculpture. If you know of some, you could add greatly to this discussion by telling us about them.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Marvin,
Doesn’t the value of asking students to define art inevitably depend on the examples of “art” they’ve been exposed to? In my view, if works of radically anti-traditional work are presented in the classroom alongside traditional works of painting and sculpture, the exercise is likely to be a futile one, since the objects have nothing in common on which to base a definition—other than the fact that they were all made by a purported artist.
As I point out in Who Says That’s Art?, the definition of art has become an impossible task even for professional philosophers for that very reason. Because they attempt to encompass all the avant-garde inventions put forward as “art” since the early twentieth century, all they can say, in effect, is that “art” is anything made by an “artist.” As I document, the irony is that those new forms (including abstract work) were often explicitly acknowledged by their creators to be something fundamentally different from prior “art.”
In any case, how can a teacher of art teach effectively without a reasonably clear idea of what qualifies as “art”? In that connection, I note that you cite Ellen Winner of Harvard Project Zero on your website. Surprisingly, her view of “art” is quite confused (as indicated on pages 35 and 144–46 of my book). Finally, regarding the interview with your daughter, I noted with particular interest her feeling that photography differs significantly from painting. As it happens, that is what I argue as well.
I am an artist, art teacher, and art educator. I do not have a definition of art set in stone, but I believe as teachers we need to be asking our students to give us their definition of art. By debating among themselves, they become engaged. They learn more than I can teach them when they are not engaged in my explanations. I have posted an interview with my daughter when she was about 10: What is Art?–at age 10?.
Michelle,
Your patience and continued dedication to reclaiming art from unwittingly destructive opinions is heartening and invaluable. Your ability to carefully examine contrary views is refreshingly free from snarkiness and I appreciate it very much.
Diane Viewing
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Thank you, Diane!