Issue date: 11/19/09 Section: Opinion

Yes

Jancy Nightingale
This past week's CCA, Traditionalism and Modernism in Art and Architecture, received mixed reviews. Some criticisms could apply to any CCA, whether referring to technical difficulties, a speaker's monotone delivery or going over time.

In regard to that last criticism, it's interesting that no one complains about the film CCAs going for two hours, but a speaker that goes 20 minutes over is considered overkill. Sure, there's the obvious difference of passively watching a motion picture versus listening to someone talk with visual demonstrations, but both contribute to our better understanding of the subject at hand.

Criticisms specifically concerned with this CCA have a range very much like the movements in art history, and like those movements, some critics are constructive while others form out of ignorance. One criticism main criticism pointed out the asymmetrical balance of representing both traditionalism and modernism. Between being at Hillsdale College and inviting speakers of the traditional persuasion, we should have a pretty good grasp on traditionalism.

As Associate Professor of Art Barbara Bushey and Assistant Professor of English Justin Jackson noted at the round table, there wasn't a full representation of modernism. In fact, Jackson made the "selfish request" for an advocate for modernism to have been included in the series.

I agree with this constructive criticism, but I would also like to put into perspective exactly how much this CCA topic covers and compare it to past CCAs to demonstrate how much was being asked of the speakers. Traditionalism began during the Renaissance in Italy, and chronologically followed art movements up to the transition and continuation of modernism up to today.
The dates span from 1450-present, a little over five centuries. The next two CCAs, The New Deal, and Films of 1939 cover a grand total of four years. To put it into more perspective, our very own art history class that studies the Renaissance up to modernism covers in one semester what the speakers attempted to speak on in eight hours spread over five days.

Of all the objections, the most frustrating complaint to hear was how pointless this CCA was. While walking as part of the great exodus to dinner, I overheard one person say to another something along the lines of questioning why he should even care about art, since he is an economics major. First off, art reveals more about a society's values and history than a textbook. Art and politics are closely related and encompass many subjects, including economics. It's all part of the liberal arts, which is something a lot of people on this campus seem to misunderstand, and frankly, it makes me wonder why they're here. To reverse the situation, an economics major would most likely be enraged if an art major put down the free market CCA, claiming it had no application to his studies. My last point: You freely chose to attend this particular CCA, and if you truly believed art and architecture had no relation to economics, then again, why are you here?

No

Besty Woodruff
As everyone who regularly leaves their room knows, the CCA came around last week. I'd never attended one before, and quickly realized what an important role they play in our campus culture. They bring together people of all different interests -- Greeks and athletes, HCF members and Collegian writers -- and give them something to talk about with each other. They expose us to intelligent people and make us think about important ideas.

So, they should be done right.

The greatest weakness of last week's CCA was the topic's sheer breadth. Traditionalism versus modernism? We can find enough diversity in the lives of two people (Lincoln and Tocqueville) or the films produced in one year (1939) to fuel a CCA's worth of discussion, but when we finally get to spend a week on visual art, we try to tackle almost all of art history. The CCA should have addressed just architecture - or even just one aspect of architecture - or just modernism, or a variety of other manageable topics.

But by trying to talk about so much, the CCA propagated the illusion that anyone can properly explain the differences between modernism and traditionalism in a few lectures, which simply isn't true. As Assistant Professor of English Justin Jackson pointed out, nobody actually defended modernism.

Many students will graduate from Hillsdale without ever having to study a piece of visual art. For them, this CCA could have been a golden opportunity to gain literacy in this key part of Western culture. But the topic allowed speakers to solely pander to many students' preconceived notions about modernism without presenting a multifaceted view of the evolution of Western art. Simply put, modernism became a straw man.

None of this is to say the CCA was a waste of time; quite the contrary. It sparked campus-wide conversation and probably raised interest in art. But it's disappointing that it didn't realize its potential.

CCA organizers: Let's rejoice in the challenge of presenting engaging seminars that encourage discussion and debate, rather than disparagement and derision of one school of art that happens to be unpopular on this campus. Next time we have a seminar on art, let's discuss a topic that's accessible.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools