The other two would be (1.) the manufacture or practice that we nurture and refine, and (2.) the contextualisation and broadcast of our works and positions as artists.
The reason the Image of the artist is of such importance -and perhaps of increasing importance) is that it encompasses all of our other preconceptions about art and ourselves as artists.
We could say that every decision made in the studio or in the proliferation of our works and reputations as artists depends upon an underlying understanding of the current and historical image of the artist as well as the image we have of our selves as artists.
Crucially, the question of the image of the artist kicks in to that crucial zone -preconceptions, as it is the vigilant awareness of our habits and preconceptions (lazy and complacent thinking) that distinguishes us from other professions and walks of life e.g. mere quirky craftsmen and producers of novel garden centre ornaments.
During the presentation I used extraordinary figures like Warhol, Caravaggio, Beuys, Koons, Ana Mendieta, Tracy Emin, Damien Hirst, Jackson Pollock, Ryan Trecartin, Gustave Courbet, and Matthew Barney to posit the idea that the really significant and important artist not only renews and innovates the artwork, and not only troubles and challenges contextualisation, but, above and beyond all this, also transforms the image of the artist.
Perhaps we should not have such lofty ambitions as to aspire to such greatness and historical significance as the artists I have named, nevertheless, if what I assert is the case then consideration of the Image of the artist must be a crucial aspect of any undergraduate curriculum and something we can be aware of, research and maintain vigilance about in every aspect of our lives and works as artists.
When I say that certain artists transform the image of the artist I mean that they change what we mean by 'artist' and this changes the trajectory of every subsequent aspirant artist.
The diminished audience -always de-spiriting for a tutor- made the dialogue a little stilted and one -sided but there were some good challenges and contributions from the students. One of the questions raised was whether a Televisual popularisation of the image of the artist -as in the recent Saatchi TV competition - maintains a conservative, safely commodifiable and acceptable image of the artist -with the resulting conservative effects on the society that artists could be energising and revitalising.
Another important point we glossed over, raised but were not able to really deal with in depth, was the question of whether we get the artists we need or deserve in that the image of the artist is possibly transformed by artists (Koons and Duchamp are good examples) as a response to changing socio-economic conditions. If so, given the enormous transformations we are currently undergoing, both economically and socially, it would appear to be disastrous to train artists according to any complacent image of what we think the artist IS or SHOULD BE (according e.g. to a 90s style market-led model) and far more appropriate to instate an atmosphere of courageous speculation, sewing a seedbed of wild possibilities from which the artists of the next generation can arise without being hampered by the prejudices, self-interest and limited ambitions of a past (and exceptionally conservative) generation.
In summary, the Image of the artist is of paramount -not marginal -importance in the considerations of artists, art students and tutors if we truly believe in the value of art as an exceptional profession. to ignore or diminish it is ultimately to limit both our imaginations and the possibilities of our practices -i.e. limiting what we are able and allowed to invent and make, show and discuss.
