(Image by Phillip Guston)

“…No one can prove …that any given book or film is better than all the others.”

And here it is, wallop, my biggest problem / difficulty when it comes to teaching – taste-based bias. Does me, or any other teacher, liking or not liking a piece of work really matter in terms of a student’s progression? Could you argue my experience as a commercial image maker has some precedence? But how much and what type of experience genuinely warrants a more educated or superior taste? Surely to go into teaching with an attitude of hierarchical tastes between students and teacher would be ill advised?

“…If …I say that the painting is beautiful, then I am not in fact describing the painting at all. Instead, I am talking about myself,”

…Which is of course bad practice as a teacher? Obviously some technical or referential insight here and there is helpful, but this line really struck a chord with me. Is how an image makes me feel in relation to previous experiences, as Kant argues aesthetic taste is, of any use to a student?   

“Beautiful art . . . promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication”

I take from this that ‘beautiful’ art is capable of building communities, which I really agree with. Putting the definition of beautiful to one side momentarily, shared artistic, aesthetic tastes can definitely build collectives, often in the face of adversity, look at the impressionists. I suppose updating this statement post Duchamp however would probably require substituting the word beautiful. What would be the shared adjective for the aesthetics of the original punk movement be? Or todays, post William Gibson, post millennial, post gabber techno and post gender art school ravers?    

“…On the other hand, a work art may be spoiled if used in the service of an external purpose”

Context is everything! This is an interesting point I often talk about with my students. Controlling the perception of an image through its location or presentation can often be as important as the image itself. For example, it’s almost impossible to appreciate the album artwork of some music you find abhorrent even though its appearance is unaffected. It’s the same as an artist’s unsavoury behaviour putting you off the work. Look at Picasso; his romantic career doesn’t stand up to contemporary standards meaning some people have really been put off his paintings.

“…decentring, in which patients move to a wider perspective on their symptoms and problems. Instead of “being” their negative thoughts and emotions, patients are helped to “reframe” these as mental events in a wider context of awareness. There is a parallel here with art criticism.”

Using a psychotherapeutic stance to view art successfully is such a great comparison however not without issues. By taking a step back in your thinking to widen your observational stance on a work in relation to other factors is certainly the soundest advice I can take from the piece. However, in always taking this wider view would you be in danger of overlooking the nuances of a work? In its extreme this theory would almost suggest if a work related to a wider context, it is more worthwhile? Which could then lead us on to the point of populism vs freedom of expression and perhaps an even bigger question. Forget what makes an image beautiful – what makes an image successful? (+ how the hell can I teach that?!).