I would be curious as to what others think about something I've witnessed over the last couple decades. With the rise of digital media, a lot of isms became more like "styles" to a lot of younger students. I would chalk this up to the highly niche atmosphere that they're currently living in. Another thing I've noticed is a lack of really basic art historical knowledge. I'm not saying this to come off as "Old man yells at cloud" but would rather like to investigate as to why others may think this is. I often attend the Art History visiting speakers that are available in my community, and I've also noticed that the topics of the talks has also shifted from being about an artist of the past, but rather concerned with how that relates to the current age we live in. As an example, a recent (a couple years ago) lecture I attended billed itself as being about Zurburan, and I thought great, but when I attended, it was only about one of his models. The people attending (tons of foundation students as it is required of them) didn't really learn anything about Zurburan himself, but rather the same trappings we'd imagine come with a lecture like this.
A couple other points I'd to make too. Is I have no problem with taking a critical look at artists of the past, and the "old white dudes' (I can't believe it's still ok to say that in public Universities) . What I'm wondering is are we losing something by not simply teaching more about people, and their work, rather than putting a contemporary revisioning of the power dynamics present in their lives and how they relate to the present. Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with academics pursuing these avenues, I welcome it, but I wonder if it's the best way to actually educate people about the past.
So. Simply put. Are we teaching Art History all wrong? Especially to young artists?
In italy you have two hours in middle school (11-13) very chill and we draw also. In high school (14-18) it depends: in the liceo classico (humanistic path) only for two hours per week in the last three years, in the liceo scientifico same and in the others also i guess, only the liceo artistico has five hours of history of art per week for all the five years.
I was thinking it might just be because a few of them (e.g. the first Islamic Empire) were in incredibly safe and powerful spots to begin with, and so that might just allow them to afford more leniency than less stable kings could. But if that were true then every powerful empire would presumably be like them, or at least a lot more of them, which obviously isn't true.
Or could it be that the stereotype of the pious and luxurious Caliph is just that, and they had their fare share of religious or scientific persecution? If that's true it would be an incredible shame.
Like was it important because it showed the different art styles of the time? Or was it just because it's a really good painting?
Was it because it showed the artist's life at the time and showed their emotions? Or is it because it was made in that specific time period?
There seem to be certain dishes and ingredients that are in vogue for a time and then fall out of fashion, but nothing like the difference between, baroque classical and country western, or realism and surrealism. Is it that there's simply less room for experimentation and improvisation in the culinary arts? Are the culinary arts limited by the number of ingredients and possible combinations or methods of preparation in a way that other arts aren't? We're able, and can afford, to take big risks and push boundaries in "art for art's sake", but at the end of the day we need our food to be edible at least most of the time; it's an art that also needs to be functional. It's interesting to think about the artistic drive and how it manifests in all the different areas of life, and what it means for our most basic, human nature and behavior that they exist balanced on this spectrum between art and functionality. What are your thoughts?