This past year has been more writing than sculpting. That's because I've been working to finish up my degree before the baby arrives. Just to clarify, I'm working on an M.A. in Humanities with an emphasis in Medieval and Renaissance Studies. My thesis is on Piero della Francesca's Polyptych of the Misericordia.
I am sure that you are all wondering why a sculptor would be getting a degree in the Humanities and writing a paper about a panel painting. For one, I do not see the history of art and the making of art as two separate disciplines. It is very important for my work that I know quite a lot about the history of what it is that I'm doing, and not just what is being made now or even recently. Why have humans made art historically? We now see art as an expression of the self, as being therapeutic, as something we make because we want to and then we struggle to market it. As far as human history is concerned these ideas about art are very new. In the Renaissance, no one would think to make art just because. There was an intended purpose, a patron and a payroll. Most artists worked in groups as a part of a workshop under a master. The myth of the reclusive, anti-social artist who works obsessively alone on things that express the inner workings of his soul may describe a few contemporary artists, but it is not the norm. In fact, many of us contemporary artists who work better in groups, are generally clean and cheerful and who would like to earn a decent wage feel like we phonies because we do not live up to some invented stereotype based off a few eccentrics.
I am sure that you are all wondering why a sculptor would be getting a degree in the Humanities and writing a paper about a panel painting. For one, I do not see the history of art and the making of art as two separate disciplines. It is very important for my work that I know quite a lot about the history of what it is that I'm doing, and not just what is being made now or even recently. Why have humans made art historically? We now see art as an expression of the self, as being therapeutic, as something we make because we want to and then we struggle to market it. As far as human history is concerned these ideas about art are very new. In the Renaissance, no one would think to make art just because. There was an intended purpose, a patron and a payroll. Most artists worked in groups as a part of a workshop under a master. The myth of the reclusive, anti-social artist who works obsessively alone on things that express the inner workings of his soul may describe a few contemporary artists, but it is not the norm. In fact, many of us contemporary artists who work better in groups, are generally clean and cheerful and who would like to earn a decent wage feel like we phonies because we do not live up to some invented stereotype based off a few eccentrics.
So at the end of all of this, I'll have a Master's degree, not in studio art, but the art history, culture, philosophy, theology and literature of a time when the West commonly sees as the pinnacle of art. Until then, my nose is pressesd firmly to the grindstone as I try to get this done. It feels like a monumental task, but the words of my uncle echo in my mind, "One shovel full at a time." Or, for me, "One sentence at a time."
No comments:
Post a Comment