James Elkins & Types of knowing: Can art be taught?

Lecture notes:

Elkins has written some provocative, skeptical texts, such as ‘Why painting cannot be taught’ and ‘Artists with PhD’s' and ‘On Pictures and the Word that Fail Them’. Whilst celebrating the trans-formative or ‘alchemic’ practice of art production, Elkins has been critical of the close alliance of practice and research (which founds the idea of practice based research). Elkins sees his art practice and art criticism as operating in very different registers. He separates his own work in terms of theory and practice, but also suggests that critics and historians should ‘learn to paint’ (and stop assuming that there is a ‘total meaning’ to any given work, or attempting to see semiotic significance in every random mark)

Elkins is an historian and art critic at the Art Institute of Chicago. Having been a painter but having become an art historian, he occupies an interesting place on discussion of painting/writing and rationality in particular. He believes that art/painting are irrational practices and that art cannot be taught.

Theories suggest that in the context of art, enthusiasm, commitment, passion, responsiveness and sympathy are important parts of teaching. A certain amount of art can be taught, however it is mostly argued that the main practice of creating artwork cannot be taught. Some believe that no subject can be taught, and that we are born with the ability to do certain subjects and cannot learn something to the full extent if we are not born with that knowledge.