Practicing artists who participate in the art market - and who are embedded in the increasingly corporate university - pay a price (the specie being time, energy and institutional angst) for their fortnightly pay packet.A great deal of energy is spent (some may say wasted) fighting administrative initiatives that are antithetical to good orderly direction and pragmatic curriculum contribution to positive student outcomes.Faculty resistance to relentless, successive waves of administrative policy that bows to the bottom-line costs of everything and the value of nothing is an unrecognized area of public service. Service dedicated to maintaining some connection to qualitative (rather than quantitative) outcomes.Speaking as an unabashed market participating practitioner, of longstanding, who also teaches I'd like to report that the amount of time I spend serving as a human bulwark against echt-corporate policies has (conservatively) trebled. Which has had the effect of perniciously eroding the sanctuary of studio, the physical and mental robustness required to 'dance' with the the market and do right by what remains of my so-called personal life.I would suggest that most folk's outside view (including enfant terrible Tao's) is a caricature of what participation in the contemporary academy costs the practicing artists who - from expedience or love - choose to make a career of training nascent artists for the occupation.Be well. Roger Boyce
Sorry I had missed this earlier comment, and am only publishing it now. My mistake.
Post a Comment