Once upon a December night, I received an unexpected phone call from an Argus reporter. It was the night before publication. She wanted a quote about what was “unique” about doing an art thesis. I said something. Upon reading the article “Try Staying up All Night in the CFA” in the Dec. 9 Argus, I became very angry at my own words. They were not my own, or not exactly: “Doing an art thesis is much more personal and meaningful and highly involving process than a writing project is.” I did not say that painting was more meaningful than writing in general, but rather that it was more meaningful to me than writing. I would never presume to say that visual art is necessarily more meaningful than writing, and I regret that my words were published inaccurately.
Others who were featured in the same article were angry that it stereotyped studio art as a pretentious, elitist pursuit separate from the larger academic community. The article was accurate in describing an art thesis as involving imagination and personal reflection; however, in attributing these internal processes exclusively to the art major, it was not accurate. So generally defined as they were, imagination and personal reflection could be attributed to many other disciplines. Speaking from my own experience, making art simply means inventing and reinventing ways of seeing and being in the world. Painting is personally involving to me because I do it in order to define my perspective on reality. It is more meaningful to me than writing because it is the language in which I can most effectively express my perspective, not because it is an exercise in channeling some “omnipotent force,” as stated in the article.
Leave a Reply