Two Books

I'd like to recommend two books I just finished reading. It's especially interesting when I read them side by side, and finished them almost at the same time.

1.The Art Spirit, by Robert Henri. Robert Henri was nearly the most influential art teacher in the late 19th century and the early 20th century. He is also a daring and pioneering painter. His personality, force and "extraordinary gift for verbal communication" "drew unto himself such a large, ardently personal group of followers." When you read his book, you'll know why.

This book is compiled by one of Rober Henri's students, Margery Ryerson. She was so intrigued by his teaching that she would follow him in class and write down things he said--to the point where she ignores her own painting. So this book is a compilation of notes, articles, fragments of letters and talks to students, etc. It was made possible when Robert Henri fell ill later in his life, so he had time to go over it and edit it with the student Margery Ryerson. Afterwards he insisted the book be priced low so the poor students could afford it.

The book is packed with inspiration and wisdom--not just about art, but about life in general. You really get a sense of his powerful force as a person, his passion for life and art, and his sincere, earnest care for his students. It's a rare treat to read it, and all the things he said are still highly relevant. There are 17 reviews of this book on Amazon.com so far and everybody loved it. I echo them too.

Here is the link: Amazon

2. Why Art Cannot Be Taught, by James Elkins. Now this book is not so sure and clear, but is still interesting to read. The author has a B.A., M.F.A (Master of Fine Arts), and a Ph.D in Art History, and is currently teaching at the Art Institute of Chicago.

Besides making you confused and pessimistic about art schools, all the analyses he offered in the book did not shed too much light on the whole process of art teaching, which he basically concedes at the end of the book: It does not make sense to try to understand how art is taught. And,"There is no way to know if it is a good idea to understand something that works by not being understood."

The author states that art education is essentially different from education in all the other disciplines, even music. There are no tests/examinations, and the subsitute, critiques, is incoherent and confusing most of the time. It is commendable that the author even undertook such an endeavor, trying to rationalize something that is largely irrational. In the process he threw in many obscure words, terms, theories I don't care to know, and lengthy analyses, conducting sort of an autopsy on art teaching in the way that a surgeon would on a corpse, which he admits, by doing so, made the book itself less interesting than an actual critique.

It is as if he took the readers around a big circle and went back to the starting point. So it is true that art cannot be taught,that most art made in art classes are mediocre, that critiques remain confusing and unconstructive, and that it is even useless trying to make sense of all this. What art schools do is teaching techniques and providing a fostering environment that encourages the artist's growth instead of hindering it. The number of famous artists coming out of a certain art school is not necessarily the result of the school's teaching--those people will be good artists nonetheless. Well that is not a very positive argument for art schools, is it? Maybe it will be best to resort to the simple Eastern philosophy, two phrases every Chinese person can roll off his tougue,"大道不言" and "道可道，非常道"--whether in a comical and ironical sense or not.

But it's still interesting to read, in that the book tackles head on a topic few people devote much thought or rational analysis into. And you gain insights in how an art school works--sort of, to really know it you'll have to get into it and go through it yourself, like everything else.