The Art Critic...

I thought that Dana and I were on the same page. Up until this point I have followed along with his musings on museums, and for the most part have been amazed at his prescience when it comes to museums. I have read along and nodded my head in agreement until the very last section. Why did he have to say those nasty things about art and art museums? I realize that it might not be for everyone, but come on!

He begins well enough (with me nodding along). His definition of art is simple and optimistic; he defines art as a thing with the “permanent possibility of an agreeable thrill” (p. 202). I love that definition, though I might take out the qualifier “agreeable” and just assert that art has the permanent possibility of thrill. I think art can cause agreeable feelings for some and disgust in others without losing its artiness (its all about personal preference). I can even approve of his apparent contempt for American taste and his argument that Americans only appreciate beauty where they have been trained to appreciate it (p. 204-5).

But he really loses me when he asks the reader, “If you could control the art teaching in the United States, and had a moderate amount of money and a few good teachers, what would you do?” He answers his own question by suggesting that teachers focus on teaching a few (naturally talented artists) the skills necessary to create art, and to teach everyone else the very basics. Ultimately he advises the reader to not “waste time” by teaching students who were not born to be artists (p. 209). I have a major problem with this – since when is any kind of art instruction a waste of time? Even if a student does not become a great master, how is acquiring skills not beneficial? And why in the world is he advising the teacher to make those kinds of subjective judgments of their students – especially when he seems to have a problem with American judgments of taste in general? It seems like a dangerous road to go down, Dana.

I could have forgiven his suggestions about teaching art (after all he was writing a loooooong time ago), had he not also attacked the art museum. He begins the section “The Use of Museums” by listing all of the things (in his opinion) that art museums do not do. Apparently art museums do nothing but collect and preserve objects (p. 220), and Dana seems to believe that department stores do more to influence taste and aesthetic appreciation than an art museum could ever hope to (p. 221). Throughout his writings, Dana has suggested that people can appreciate art and beauty in places other than museums – and I totally agree with him on that point – but here he suggests that an art museum is not a place where one can develop taste and get inspiration. That just seems harsh. Of course an art museum can inspire people – just as much as that 15 cent piece of glass or a hastily positioned rubbish bin on the side of the street. If there is inspiration to be found in that bin, there is inspiration to be found in a museum.