MIX's FIX

The below was written just before Sept. 11, 2001 and to be honest I have had trouble touching it. So I still believe all of these things, even more strongly in light of past events, except perhaps that I even less identify myself as an "art historian" in favor of something more broad, like "visual culture historian" or, even better, an educator in the field of visual literacy. EKM 8/20/06

MENON'S MANIFESTO
(formerly known as "mission impossible")

Some of you are probably wondering why it's taking me so [insert your favorite expletive here] long to write a mission. After all... I had a perfectly good "teaching philosophy and methods" page I used during my job search last year.

How is that different than a "mission" or "manifesto"? I guess because the former represents for me the safety of a past which I cannot change; the latter the murky and challenge-ridden future which demands it. To me, the word "philosophy" just sits there—it may or may not reflect a specific goal but it implies you'll be thinking about it for a very long time. "Mission" implies both a specific goal and a course of action but also suggests a linear process that has a (probably pre-determined) conclusion.

Thus I choose "manifesto"—a public declaration of principles or intentions—taking as my inspiration one of my former students (known as "Blackstone") who wrote what he titled "PEOPLE I FESS TO"— less a politically-correct construction than an acknowledgment that such a document serves to place the individual's goals within a larger cultural and historical context AND that the process can inspire a confessional tone.

To those features I would add the following: that a really serious manifesto should always be in a state of flux, and the "unfinished" state of it should in turn make it easier to write and re-write.

To wit, I declare the following on September 3, 2001 (ha ha, Labor day!), which I title "What I know for Sure" (borrowed from Oprah Winfrey, who borrowed it from someone else).

WHAT I KNOW FOR SURE...

1. I believe that the discipline of art history does not exist solely for the creation or "molding" of new art historians who practice either "old" art history or "new" art history.

2. "New" art history is associated not with a methodology specific to the discipline but from a series of methodologies "borrowed" from other disciplines, usually after the "host" discipline has discarded them. This makes art history parasitic not in a "leech" way but in a "dung beetle" way. Lovely.

3. I propose an art history that adapts to shift to its *audience* and in so doing shifts back to *ART* (ironic thought, isn't it?)

4. I want to prove that I can educate art historians, artists, social scientists and art education majors in the same classroom and individualize their experience. This does not mean avoiding chronologies and dates; it does not mean that research doesn't take place. It does mean that I consider my audience and find a way to shape method of delivery in the classroom, the nature of material covered and especially course projects to help each student make a personal connection.

5. While I am concerned that all of my students (whether art history, art education, art studio or non-art majors) find a way to personally connect with art and art history, I am most sensitive to the needs of the studio artists who have been deliberately alienated by The New Art History.

6. Art Historians should *learn how to look* from artists and should form their teaching strategies through consideration of material published in the area of Art Education. The segregation of Art Studio, Art Education and Art History benefits no-one.

7. "Art Historians" are known for an outward appearance and attitude which I do not personally identify with: a pretentious, unapproachable "authority" whose methods and materials cannot be questioned... that the foibles of the discipline of art history are"secrets" to be kept from all but the most advanced graduate students. Whether we've embraced "visual culture" or not, that pretentious attitude remains as a shell of the old order.

8. I am proud of the fact that most people, when they first learn I'm an art historian, say "You don't look like an art historian." I always say "Thank-you."

9. Theory WITH jargon has fostered the elitist attitude I abhor. I do not, in theory, have a problem with theories, but a theory that is put forth with customized jargon meant to obfuscate rather than clarify the theory goes against my "educator" nature. Knowledge, like Art, should be for everyone...

10. What is the difference between someone in academia who invents jargon and George W. Bush? The general public UNDERSTANDS what Bush MEANT to say. He's a better communicator despite the frequent "grammar-cides"he commits.

11. Bush's invention of words might be part of a conspiracy aimed to befuddle scrabble players of the world. I propose that we begin to, as a discipline, interrogate the creation of the language of the "New Art History" as an elitist prospect. Are we trying to make Art History into a form of ART by taking away its FUNCTION? Are we trying to hide our fear that there is little substance behind the jargon?

12. .........to be continued........