A New Day in the Academy

The academy or educational institution of higher learning dedicated to the arts is now (re)defining the "new" discipline of community arts. To this end, committees will be formed, research conducted, theories posed, models tested and outcomes evaluated. Meaning and significance will be determined. Students will matriculate through these programs.

This “dawning of a new day” should not be mistaken for a clean slate — for this “awakening” is inextricably linked to a history that privileges certain ideas, viewpoints and agendas. Given the predominance of this legacy, it is essential that we initiate a comprehensive ongoing dialogue about our ancestral benefactors: the “academy,” “high art” and related “tried and true teaching models” that inform every aspect of our work as community artists. What follows are some observations, many questions and no few concerns. I look forward to the possibility that we may, as a community of community artists, address these issues and together articulate a shared vision worthy of the field.

The academy exists to teach the right way to make “correct art.” The form and function of “legitimate” art is, of course, limited. Not surprisingly, the student artist is taught in a manner supporting a closed set of ideas highly valued by the academy and its faculty. That said, art students interested in becoming community artists seek connections that often transcend the physical, intellectual and spiritual confines of the academy or high-art institution. The nature of this pursuit is revolutionary. It posits difficult and complex questions. It places the student artist in direct opposition to many of the prerequisites and privileges of the dominant cultural paradigm — manifest in the academy itself.

Students trained according to the tenets of high art will naturally rely (fall back) on that which they know best – the ideas of the elite or ruling class. Despite their own self-denial, the proclaimed intent of students to empower the “other” is often betrayed by their reliance on a system of knowledge that by its existence produces “otherness.” For the most part, these young artists lack the experience and training that would permit them to interrogate the assumptive truths and prerogatives of their greatest teacher — the status quo.

Questions: Is it possible for a community artist trained within the academy to transmit anything other than high-art values? How might high-art principles and practices impact “community”? What must change, if anything, for tomorrow's community artist to be fully empowered by his/her education in the academy – while also serving the self-empowering interests of community?

I advocate for an extensive self-critical analysis of high art, the academy and the methodologies used to train today's artists — especially as they may relate to the community arts.

Topic #1: Aesthetics

A fundamental tenet of our work as community artists states that community should be encouraged to define its own creative prerogatives. Therefore, community artists must be open to and comfortable with the idea of “multiple truths,” new concepts of beauty and standards of excellence that may be different from those advocated by the academy. That said, the academy's preoccupation with aesthetics — the unquestioned “arbitrator of rightness” and aligned schools of thought — may not serve the community's interests well enough.

For example, Modernist philosophies reject tradition and the relevance of primarily representational artforms. This departure from literal depiction foregrounds the supreme importance of art, artmaking and aesthetics as the subject of the artist’s own investigation. The artmaker is therefore inclined to reject the importance of content, narrative and any hint of cultural, social and/or political messages or subtext. The student artist interested in addressing topical themes or issues, such as racial identity or societal class differences, is often met with a deafening silence when showing his/her work — the critique emphasizing aesthetic considerations rather than the actual ideas embedded within the content of the subject matter. Ultimately, the intended meaning and significance of the work is ignored as is the development and application of advanced technical, conceptual and storytelling skills supporting these intentions.

Questions: Given these limitations, how might the academy-trained community artist assist those who wish to lift up their own stories, communities seeking to define their identities and empower their members via arts-based storytelling? How might the sensory aspects and legitimately empowering principles and practices of aesthetics and “beauty” accommodate the community’s definition and pursuit of the sublime.

No less important, is it possible that community might actually provide the young community artist with an all-important training ground — a place ripe with new perspectives and rationales for making art? Might the academy-trained community artist be transformed by this communion and develop a totally new set of skills, knowledge and artforms?

In my opinion, we should consider providing student artists with a much more expansive and inclusive education accommodating a multitude of cross-cultural philosophies pertaining to art and the liberal arts. In fact, student artists should be trained to seek out and nurture new ideas, processes and forms that reside outside of the cannon – “home grown” ideas grounded in the life and times of community. The academy, therefore, will need to transform itself from a receptacle of selected knowledge to a more engaged catalyst for broad-based “knowledge making” — and train its students accordingly.

Questions: To what degree can the academy be truly inclusive and invite a multitude of so-called "unsanctioned" ideas to the table? What kinds of changes will need to be instituted in order to accommodate a more fluid, evolving curriculum? Does the door of real knowledge swing both ways – thereby linking community to the academy?

I advocate for the critical review of “movements” and “tried and true” philosophies and their chokehold on the relevance of art and the imagination of the artist in and out of community.

Topic #2: Ideas and Their Relevancy

Dialogue and reconciliation are two forces that drive our work as community artists. In the world of high art, though, the artist is trained to look inward for inspiration. First and foremost, the artist is encouraged to be his/her own subject — the mind and body (of the artist) focused on itself. Therefore, the artmaker is by training desensitized, often oblivious to an "other-directed" consciousness.

In the world of the academy, conceptual art embodies the power of the “idea” while also questioning the very definition of art. In many cases, conceptual art releases the artist from aesthetic-based prerequisites and the acquisition of traditional artmaking skills. In some respects, this perspective could be viewed as empowering to the community artist, allowing for new modes of thinking and reacting to the world. That said, conceptual art is by definition self-directed, a collection of musings focused on art, ideas and the mind. It is hard to say how these ideas would impact a community where the immediacy of life requires ideas to take form with tangible results.

Questions: To what degree is the community- arts field burdened by the “community-busting” aspects of high art's preoccupation with itself? What relevance does a Duchamp have to a culture or community that sits on the fringes of society? Are “found objects” art, “anti-art,” or trash littering the streets of a disenfranchised community – a living symbol of decay and hopelessness? What happens in and to a community if this focus on the individual overtakes an already fractured sense of public or communal self? Is high art a precursor for disaster in community? Is high art the antithesis of community?

I advocate for new dialectic strategies that foreground social and communal dynamics and collaborative artforms – the art of the “we.”

Topic #3: Is everyone an artist? Really?

It would seem one needs a degree to earn this title — and all associated status and benefits. Of course, a degree takes money, access and time. The academy trains us to be artists in a particular way, utilizing specific models of learning and understanding, thereby controlling the definition of what art is at any time through history.

For example, Western artmaking conventions privilege certain ideas over others. These ideals and principles are in no way benign in nature or significance. They may, in fact, represent ideas or values that are in opposition to those that a community may embody or wish to represent. At the very least, these principles may not accommodate the cultural prerequisites that a person, people or community wishes to express.

A community that is sensitive to issues of power and related dynamics may be very concerned about ideas and modes of thinking (visual or otherwise) that are linked to a history, institutions and/or systems that hold power to convey privileged meaning and authority over that same community. Western modes of drawing are challenging for novice artists to master. The process of learning to draw this way — if not sanctioned by the community — may represent a symbolically oppressive act that is ultimately laden with frustration, disappointment and resentment.

There are as many culturally mandated modes of drawing or making art as there are distinct cultures. No “pure” or universal mode of representational drawing exists in the wider world of art. Therefore, drawing and other kinds of artmaking should be measured against the cultural prerogatives of the community.

The development of expressive mark-making is in itself an act of political empowerment that connects the novice artist to his or her inner longing to “speak and be heard.” Although this work may be representational in nature, the novice’s drawing and artmaking should indicate a mode of behavior that is not burdened by the need to mimic certain drawing constructs – but exists as natural and honest representation of the artist’s feelings, ideas and/or opinions. Too often the kind of intentionality practiced at a high-art academy is unwittingly transferred by those who are trained according to high-art tenets. This kind of advanced cognition is often tied to a limited set of constructs, languages, principles and values that always privilege certain ideas over others.

Questions: As community artists — can we accept and nurture truths that may lie outside the curriculum? Can “new truths” thrive and be valued without (pre)judgment or the “legitimacy” conveyed by an expert's standards? Can a community define its own special voice, identity, beliefs and mode of expression in its own way — even as it is being “educated” by a knowledgeable expert, the artist trained by the academy?

I advocate that we rethink the definition and importance of "the expert" and become more inclusive in our use of this powerful label. In my opinion, expertise — in some form — lies in each and every one of us. To assume otherwise is to diminish the power, potential and health of community and its citizens.

Topic #4: Self-criticism

As community artists, our creative energies will be stimulated by our work, our curiosity fueled and our self-knowledge increased. But we must be careful that our passion for the "growth aspects" of our work does not supercede the dictates of the community. Doing to grow is very different from growing to do.

Questions: Are we the subjects of our own investigations — blind to that which compels us to act? What are our true motivations? To what end and to whose benefit?

I advocate for a self-critical interrogation of that which motivates us (and the academy) to engage community.

Topic #5: Meaning and Significance

The academy privileges the self as the repository of “truth.” As alluded to previously, discussions within this context most often revolve around the needs, feelings and desires of the individual art maker. As important as this training may be, it does not address the requisite skills necessary to successfully navigate a world of change, exchange and interchange.

Within the academy, postmodernist philosophies emphasize the re-appropriation of visual resources from art, popular culture and media history and the blending of high and low artforms. The ultimate goal of postmodernist thought, though, embraces irony and the undermining and/or redirection of traditional meaning and significance. At one level, postmodernism opens up the possibility of alternative art forms residing outside the high-art cannon. Unfortunately, the weight of irony undermines any attempt to define “truth” – certainly a particular truth articulated by a particular community seeking to define its own unique identity. Community artists skilled in postmodernist techniques must acknowledge the often damaging effects of history on the communities in which they work and the power that appropriated images may have to either deny or lift up voice, support or negate the quest for empowerment and influence the political dynamics within a community.

Questions: How will we introduce our students to an outward-looking perspective and encourage them to accept roles as leaders and agents of change? How will we necessarily reorient their training as artists to accommodate this “redirection”?

I advocate for a collective rethinking of how we orient our art students to the world and engage them in a proactive relationship with “power,” “multiple truths” and “politics of life.” Undergraduate arts programs of all kinds should encourage and support the student artist’s engagement with the larger world. Turning the artist’s studio upside down and inside out may empower the artist in ways that isolation cannot – and create new artforms never before witnessed.

Topic #6: Grounding Principles

Our work as community artists is grounded in the principles of cultural-democracy and social justice. And yet, our skill as "making artists" is grounded in the teachings of the academy and its "aesthetics"-oriented value system.

Questions: What happens when discussions about privilege, power and difference butt up against the entrenched conservatism of the academy and establishment art? How does the academy facilitate the needs of those who “rebel” in action and art? How then is the academy-trained community artist to “react” when matters of content and context matter? Are community artists willing and able to undertake the daunting task of facilitating “oppositional artforms”? Why aren’t student artists encouraged/allowed to critique the academy or participate in its own (re)creation? Can the academy become truly liberatory in nature and accommodate a real “democracy of expression” and real inclusiveness?

I advocate for a shift in orientation. The community artist will need to accept a dual role as both teacher and student — willing to set aside his or her own privileged training and authority to ”others” to empower themselves and learn in kind.

Conclusion

Artists are experts at the following: Finding connections between the seemingly disparate, building harmonious relationships, and lifting up hidden meaning. By this definition, community artists are capable of many important things — both on the canvas and in the world. I hope you find that my comments affirm this notion, even as I question how we acquire and apply our many important abilities as community artists.

This essay is part of the Community Arts Convening & Research Project, 2008, funded by a Nathan Cummings Foundation grant to the Maryland Institute College of Art. The essay was reviewed and selected by the project’s Editorial Board: Ron Bechet, Xavier University of Louisiana; Lori Hager, University of Oregon; Marina Gutierrez, Cooper Union; Ken Krafchek, Maryland Institute College of Art; Sonia Mañjon, California College of the Arts; Amalia Mesa-Bains, California State University Monterey Bay; Paul Teruel, Columbia College Chicago; and Stephani Woodson, Arizona State University.

Ken Krafchek has been a member of the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA) faculty since 1985. He headed the development of MICA's Office of Community Arts Partnerships (CAP) in 1998 and served as its first director. He also supervised the creation and design of MICA's M.A. in Community Arts Program and serves as its first graduate director.

Original CAN/API publication: June 2008