The Class of Empathy
We were privileged to have Ken Lum speak on day three of the symposium. While his talk revolved mostly around the role of the teacher/artist and the priorities that such an individual has, I would like to concentrate on Lum’s mention of empathy as a “theory of existence” for the student, the artist and the human being during his conversation with Catherine Sousloff.
In relationship to the classic student struggle through art school, Lum called for individuals to “open [themselves] up to the love of others” as a humble and genuine appreciation for the combination of personal and political histories which fuse within bodies. By honing this constant curiosity in humanity, students (and leaders alike) can collect unbelievable amounts of information which can be further divided and recognized as important moments in dialogue. Lum distinguished this ability to recognize information as important moments in history as the student’s epitome of quality.
Quality is an extremely difficult word to use and an even more abstract concept to navigate in the context of education and leadership. It certainly was not used lightly by Lum but his definition of quality may have posed a problematic binary. Lum posed the question of what is quality, and thus, who/what is a student of quality? Is it an individual who passes hours wandering halls and malls, with no apparent interest or significance, or is it the individual of “traditional” talent (I use this word with hesitation since I could argue that tradition is relative, and ever-changing), the one who draws horses well. I agree with this debate to a certain extent, for the meandering student may display several tendencies that are highly appreciated in contemporary art. It is also extremely strange to think of its relationship to the modern concept of the flâneur, an individual of privilege who has time to walk the streets aimlessly and adopts an individual responsibility of social observation.
The individual who draws horses can be found within a very difficult predicament, for an appreciation of (relative) aesthetics and tastes can become a dangerous territory of exploration wrought in history. What is to made of technical talent in the contemporary student and artist? If institutions are striving to include interdisciplinary programs and attitudes, while teaching critical skills and honing a space of self-reflexivity, doesn’t the individual who draws horses present an opportunity for variety and instigation thus also deserving of empathy? Must the relativity of taste and trend be apparent in the classroom and how will an institution’s selection or recruitment process reflect the difficult nature of pointing out potential at such an early stage?
If students/artists of technical favour are continuously being perceived as artists of quality in the eye of the general public, this opinion based on aesthetics must be addressed or else the domain of art may find itself in a state of even greater exile or elitism. If the main thesis of contemporary art exists within the student wandering the mall, then its antithesis may exist within the one who draws horses. Ignore one and we ignore our potential range in value and quality and strive for a society of homogeneity.










Tashia Seright 11:27 am on December 25, 2011 Permalink
Excellent post. I was checking constantly this blog and I’m impressed! Very helpful info particularly the last part
I care for such information much. I was seeking this certain information for a long time. Thank you and good luck.
Jamey Marseille 8:45 am on December 25, 2011 Permalink
I surely did not realize that. Learnt a thing new nowadays! Thanks for that.