Re: [-empyre-] Sense and sensibility

["The Art Gallery of Knoxville" <art.gallery.knoxville@gmail.com>]

I agree very much with the direction that Melinda sent - but not with
all the points.  Forcing this opposition (between the devil and the
deep blue sea) - and somehow assuming that education works in the
middle - is indeed a problem.  (It's also quite an odd association ...
I would flip the analogy.)

The focus must be on enabling a type of open educational practice that
is recognized as part of all Art and not a special or separated
practice.  Any time we talk about ideas ("what do you think?") - or
promote and distribute objects (with embedded information) we are
creating an educational system.

If we respect the actions and ability of people - they can have the
opportunity to respond.  The issue of objects being "boring,
incomprehensible, unengaging or irrelevant" has to do with degrees of
personal ownership - In what ways do people feel alienated or excluded
from cultural conversations?  There is very little that could honestly
be considered "boring, incomprehensible, unengaging or irrelevant"
about much so-called minimal or conceptual Art.  So why are they often
rejected in public discourse - or subjugated to restricted "movements"
that are often meant as some type of public apology or excuse?

> based on concepts accessible only to an elite

I think it is dangerous to assume that concepts are only accessible to
the prepared.  Many people are unable to participate in an active
discussion out of an insecurity, or lack of confidence in their
expressive knowledge.  Many modern artworks that are seen as being
highly "conceptual" were created to include the audience rather than
exclude them -- even the most often stated comment of rejection - "I
could do that!" - is misunderstood:  you can do that!  you should do
that!  we can do it together!