While links between art and education have long existed, it has become evident in the past twenty years that practitioners of each have become mutually concerned with integrating the two fields. The purpose of this survey is to explore the trend as seen from the perspective of different art world professionals. Today the questions are answered by Sotheby's Institute Faculty member Francesca Bellini Joseph. Francesca is the director of Portafolia Ltd. and instructor of the Art as a Global Business course at Sotheby's Institute Online
Should art aim to educate?
The only aim of art should be to exist. It should never serve any particular purpose, not education, not politics, not society. Having education as an objective of art would make it propagandistic. Education is one of mankind´s most ideological inventions. As ideology is, in essence, a temporary cultural construction, educational art would only represent an ephemeral and momentary category. Having said this, artists can certainly integrate, develop and respond to questions of their surroundings including those posed by education. Education as driver: yes. Education as aim: perhaps not.
Should the artist aim to educate?
This is a similar question to that of political art and the role of artists in politics that became hugely popular in the 1990´s - 2000s (production of art with political content dates before). It was during these years that the ability of political art to make real impact and changes in society was questioned in the context of spectacular exhibitions as that of Doris Salcedo´s Shibboleth at Tate Modern in 2007. In 2009, I interviewed the then Vice-president of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Mr. Jaime Arrubla, on the subject of political art in the context of Salcedo´s show. A man with solid understanding of politics and fully prepared to deal with related matters, his answers indicated the limitations of political art in making real change in society. I don´t intent not challenge the fascination of politics as a subject or interest of artists. Instead it is a question regarding its capacity for problem solving in the wider society. Likewise, education may be a perfectly valid source and driver for artists but to what extent? There´s a risk that art turns patronising if education is the aim.
Which artists do you credit with your education?
I should credit those artists that went to academia in an attempt to make their lives economically sustainable. Many artists have found in academia, a strategy to transfer financial pressures from their art practices. My teachers in the Universidad de los Andes, who were artists in parallel, were highly influential in my education and added great value in the way that today I approach art and its markets. This makes me wonder whether the origins of trends in pedagogical and educational art can be found in the financial pressure that pushed many artists to opt for an academic career in parallel to producing art.
The only aim of art should be to exist. It should never serve any particular purpose, not education, not politics, not society. Having education as an objective of art would make it propagandistic. Education is one of mankind´s most ideological inventions. As ideology is, in essence, a temporary cultural construction, educational art would only represent an ephemeral and momentary category. Having said this, artists can certainly integrate, develop and respond to questions of their surroundings including those posed by education. Education as driver: yes. Education as aim: perhaps not.
Should the artist aim to educate?
This is a similar question to that of political art and the role of artists in politics that became hugely popular in the 1990´s - 2000s (production of art with political content dates before). It was during these years that the ability of political art to make real impact and changes in society was questioned in the context of spectacular exhibitions as that of Doris Salcedo´s Shibboleth at Tate Modern in 2007. In 2009, I interviewed the then Vice-president of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Mr. Jaime Arrubla, on the subject of political art in the context of Salcedo´s show. A man with solid understanding of politics and fully prepared to deal with related matters, his answers indicated the limitations of political art in making real change in society. I don´t intent not challenge the fascination of politics as a subject or interest of artists. Instead it is a question regarding its capacity for problem solving in the wider society. Likewise, education may be a perfectly valid source and driver for artists but to what extent? There´s a risk that art turns patronising if education is the aim.
Which artists do you credit with your education?
I should credit those artists that went to academia in an attempt to make their lives economically sustainable. Many artists have found in academia, a strategy to transfer financial pressures from their art practices. My teachers in the Universidad de los Andes, who were artists in parallel, were highly influential in my education and added great value in the way that today I approach art and its markets. This makes me wonder whether the origins of trends in pedagogical and educational art can be found in the financial pressure that pushed many artists to opt for an academic career in parallel to producing art.