Add new comment

Being a recent-ish grad school grad, I'd suggest that the Big Idea presented in schools (or at least my school, SVA) is the idea that you have to be part of the "dialogue" of the contemporary art scene. To be relevant, your work must somehow be a reaction to what you see going on "out there" . . . never mind if you're bored shitless by all of that. But I think the idea of art world success--recognition, exhibition opportunities, money even--causes a lot of students to aim their work at that all important dialogue.

It's a rare teacher that wants to help you find your own path--I had a few that did their absolutely best to help me get somewhere: Kenji Fujita, Petah Coyne, Lucio Pozzi, and Gary (ah, I can't remember his last name, Carol, but I think he invited you to speak to our class once during the 1rst year seminar.) Most often, you got one of two approaches: 1.) The teacher came in to your studio and told you to stop doing what you're doing and do something completely different (if you're painting, make video; if you're doing video, work with fabric, etc.) or 2.) the teacher came in and simply told you what they'd do with your work if they were making it . . . "What I'd do is . . . " Neither approach is particularly useful in helping your work along. So between flaccid instruction and the incessant "dialogue" mantra--and I'd throw in as a factor the relentless exhibition schedule of gallery shows, art fairs, etc--I think you get a lot of tossed-off, under-thought work that is invariable buttressed by references to the "dialogue"

As for this generation's music--well, the old structure has been torn down and there isn't anything like the "ART WORLD" in the music world. There is no longer anything resembling a hierarchical structure in place when it comes to distribution--music is ubiquitous in a way that visual art won't even be.