Creative Arts in CollegesAuthor(s): Robert M. QuinnSource: Art Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Autumn, 1962), p. 7Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/774601 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 13:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:29:29 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ingly innocent loveliness, appears in the painting of several other Americans at work today. One thinks of Morris Louis, Helen Frankenthaler, Paul Jenkins, Raymond Parker, of Friedel Dzubas, and even Kenneth Noland. In their art, the insistence on the materiality of paint and the action of the fast and ag- gressive gesture which has until recently dominated abstract- expressionist painting is absent. Instead a certain blandness and quietude prevail which relate it to Francis' recent "blue balls." Further, an economizing in painterly means, which was initi- ated within Sam Francis' work in 1956 when white began to take over his compositions, is in some degree present today in a sizeable segment of abstract-expressionist painting. It has even affected the work of such athletically gesturaI and materialist painters as Al Leslie, Michael Goldberg and Norman Bluhm.

In surveying critical reactions to Francis' work, one is struck by the fact that its acceptance has been internationally almost unanimous but for the response of the American art press. Here, early reaction was mild but sympathetic; however skepticism-even hostility-soon set in. In the past two years, near silence has reigned and Francis' last New York exhibition was not mentioned by journalistic critics. Two prevailing biases, which have been raised to the level of criteria, may explain the

ingly innocent loveliness, appears in the painting of several other Americans at work today. One thinks of Morris Louis, Helen Frankenthaler, Paul Jenkins, Raymond Parker, of Friedel Dzubas, and even Kenneth Noland. In their art, the insistence on the materiality of paint and the action of the fast and ag- gressive gesture which has until recently dominated abstract- expressionist painting is absent. Instead a certain blandness and quietude prevail which relate it to Francis' recent "blue balls." Further, an economizing in painterly means, which was initi- ated within Sam Francis' work in 1956 when white began to take over his compositions, is in some degree present today in a sizeable segment of abstract-expressionist painting. It has even affected the work of such athletically gesturaI and materialist painters as Al Leslie, Michael Goldberg and Norman Bluhm.

In surveying critical reactions to Francis' work, one is struck by the fact that its acceptance has been internationally almost unanimous but for the response of the American art press. Here, early reaction was mild but sympathetic; however skepticism-even hostility-soon set in. In the past two years, near silence has reigned and Francis' last New York exhibition was not mentioned by journalistic critics. Two prevailing biases, which have been raised to the level of criteria, may explain the

situation. One is the exaggerated and chest-thumping critical chauvinism which has accompanied the securing of status for American abstract-expressionism and a consequent exclusiveness which has apparently extended to "expatriates" acclaimed by European connoisseurs and critics. Another, and more under- standable, bias is the one arising out of sympathy for that kind of abstract-expressionist painting which was aggressively "free," violent, anti-formalistic, painting which appeared to take shape from struggle and search, sudden revelations and accidental en- counters. The value of much of this painting is unquestionable, but its appreciation has often blinded American "avant garde" criticism to other equally valid qualities in art. There has been an ingrained assumption that hedonist painting must be super- ficially decorative, that in order to be good, painting must be tense, anguished or openly heretical, that awkwardness and even failure have virtue aesthetically. There is evidence that as American abstract-expressionism evolves, this cult will subside. Yet American criticism perhaps needs to be wary of what may be a latent Puritanism which in the past has caused it to regard Matisse as a "mere" decorator, and to underestimate the con- tributions of such Americans of an earlier generation as Mau- rice Prendergast, Charles Demuth and Alfred Maurer.

situation. One is the exaggerated and chest-thumping critical chauvinism which has accompanied the securing of status for American abstract-expressionism and a consequent exclusiveness which has apparently extended to "expatriates" acclaimed by European connoisseurs and critics. Another, and more under- standable, bias is the one arising out of sympathy for that kind of abstract-expressionist painting which was aggressively "free," violent, anti-formalistic, painting which appeared to take shape from struggle and search, sudden revelations and accidental en- counters. The value of much of this painting is unquestionable, but its appreciation has often blinded American "avant garde" criticism to other equally valid qualities in art. There has been an ingrained assumption that hedonist painting must be super- ficially decorative, that in order to be good, painting must be tense, anguished or openly heretical, that awkwardness and even failure have virtue aesthetically. There is evidence that as American abstract-expressionism evolves, this cult will subside. Yet American criticism perhaps needs to be wary of what may be a latent Puritanism which in the past has caused it to regard Matisse as a "mere" decorator, and to underestimate the con- tributions of such Americans of an earlier generation as Mau- rice Prendergast, Charles Demuth and Alfred Maurer.

CREATIVE ARTS IN COLLEGES CREATIVE ARTS IN COLLEGES

An excerpt from the comments of Robert M. Quinn, artist- teacher in the Department of Art, College of Fine Arts, Uni- versity of Arizona. Readers are referred to his full and very in- teresting account which was published in ACLS Newsletter, March, 1962.

.. As I mentioned above, the artists are not adept at forming organizations, and the result is that they are not really represented in the academic world anywhere. The College Art Association seems to be dominated by art historians, and for them it is a superb organization. Although they include artists, the members and the officers seem to be packed against the practicing artists and it is my impression that the artist is re- garded as a second-class member. Here in the west, the CAA is almost entirely inactive, and here in the west, many art depart- ments run more heavily to artists than historians. As a result, many of our western personnel have joined the Pacific Arts Association, the regional affiliate of the National Art Education Association. In Arizona, an affiliate of the PAA is the Arizona Art Education Association, of which I have been a sometime re- luctant member. In these associations the collegiate artist is swamped by the great mass of ineffectuals who flood the schools and high schools of the state, a group unalterably opposed to the skillful and intellectual content of art, who would eradicate it and substitute a hermetic form of busywork, establish a gigantic apparatus including degrees and certification, and by these de- vices protect and entrench themselves.

An excerpt from the comments of Robert M. Quinn, artist- teacher in the Department of Art, College of Fine Arts, Uni- versity of Arizona. Readers are referred to his full and very in- teresting account which was published in ACLS Newsletter, March, 1962.

.. As I mentioned above, the artists are not adept at forming organizations, and the result is that they are not really represented in the academic world anywhere. The College Art Association seems to be dominated by art historians, and for them it is a superb organization. Although they include artists, the members and the officers seem to be packed against the practicing artists and it is my impression that the artist is re- garded as a second-class member. Here in the west, the CAA is almost entirely inactive, and here in the west, many art depart- ments run more heavily to artists than historians. As a result, many of our western personnel have joined the Pacific Arts Association, the regional affiliate of the National Art Education Association. In Arizona, an affiliate of the PAA is the Arizona Art Education Association, of which I have been a sometime re- luctant member. In these associations the collegiate artist is swamped by the great mass of ineffectuals who flood the schools and high schools of the state, a group unalterably opposed to the skillful and intellectual content of art, who would eradicate it and substitute a hermetic form of busywork, establish a gigantic apparatus including degrees and certification, and by these de- vices protect and entrench themselves.

Related to this situation is the one involving degrees among the collegiate teachers. At the present time there is taking place a struggle for the establishment of the terminal degree in the practice of art and its acceptance by university administrations.

There are two schools in this controversy. One group is pressing hard for the establishment of the Ph.D. as the degree in the field of practice of art as well as art history. My impression is that this is a group composed essentially of small colleges, and especially Education dominated institutions who require doctoral degrees in profusion in their catalogues to lend the institutions prestige. The recent popularization of the degree of Doctor of Musical Arts in a number of music schools through- out the country has lent them encouragement. The other group, which seems to me to include the higher institutions and more responsible faculties, is plugging for the M.F.A. as the terminal degree in the practical field. This has been developing into a sixty unit (essentially two-year) degree, putting it roughly half-way betweend the M.A. and the Ph.D., and the effort has been to make it a strong and dignified degree. A part of the argument goes, that in the practice of art, mastership rather than scholarship is the aim, and that the doctoral degree is therefore an absurdity, whereas the Master of Fine Arts is highly appro- priate. My own department favors this view. I understand the College Art Association has come forth in support of this view.

(See A Statement on CAA Policy p. 1 this issue)

Related to this situation is the one involving degrees among the collegiate teachers. At the present time there is taking place a struggle for the establishment of the terminal degree in the practice of art and its acceptance by university administrations.

There are two schools in this controversy. One group is pressing hard for the establishment of the Ph.D. as the degree in the field of practice of art as well as art history. My impression is that this is a group composed essentially of small colleges, and especially Education dominated institutions who require doctoral degrees in profusion in their catalogues to lend the institutions prestige. The recent popularization of the degree of Doctor of Musical Arts in a number of music schools through- out the country has lent them encouragement. The other group, which seems to me to include the higher institutions and more responsible faculties, is plugging for the M.F.A. as the terminal degree in the practical field. This has been developing into a sixty unit (essentially two-year) degree, putting it roughly half-way betweend the M.A. and the Ph.D., and the effort has been to make it a strong and dignified degree. A part of the argument goes, that in the practice of art, mastership rather than scholarship is the aim, and that the doctoral degree is therefore an absurdity, whereas the Master of Fine Arts is highly appro- priate. My own department favors this view. I understand the College Art Association has come forth in support of this view.

(See A Statement on CAA Policy p. 1 this issue)

7 Colt: The Painting of Sam Francis 7 Colt: The Painting of Sam Francis

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:29:29 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions