Ad Reinhardt’s “Twelve Rules for a New Academy”

Ad Reinhardt’s ideas of art are a little difficult for me to understand. When I first read this section of our text, I didn’t get it. I don’t see “evil” in art, at least not in the form of art itself. I see “evil” in artwork, but wouldn’t it come from the creator, not the physical material? Error is naturally occuring in art, but I don’t understand what Reinhardt means by “evil”. I’ve read this article again, and again, and it puts me at a wall every time. Maybe I’m just not getting it.

This whole section just seems a little ridiculous to me. I can’t tell if it’s a mockery, or sincere. The ideas come off as frustratingly egotistical. The second paragraph jokingly mocks art movements, calling them the “humiliation and trivialization of art in America”. It also slanders the idea of institutionalized art. Reinhardt gives off this vibe that only certain people are “real” artist; that those who work hard to make a statement, to get their art noticed, or to even improve their abbilities, are ruining art.

He talks about true and false art (assuming by false he means the “academic” art).  He says that art can only be “exclusive, negative, absolute and timeless” and never “practical, useful, related, etc”. Is this guy serious? Why can art not come from something beyond ourselves, emotion, thought? This idea of art being only art, and having nothing behind it is a fine idea, but to think it is the only way, the “real art”, is extremely closed-minded.

Reinhardt goes on to say that “An artist who dedicates his life to art, burdens his art with his life, and his life with his art”, and that “Art is art, and life is life”. This is an idea that I can see but also don’t agree with competely. I can understand that making art your “life” can be very frustrating. By doing this, you’re almost forcing yourself to make art even when the ideas are not free-flowing. In my opinion, this would be the “false art” Reinhardt’s talking about. (Art that is made to be presented, with no emotion or drive behind it.) However, I don’t think that art is just art, and that life is just life. They are one and the same to me, but as I’ve realized I am someone who puts ideas and emotions into art.

Reinhardt’s ideas seem a lot like Pollock’s in the previous interview we read. Reinhardt talks about forgetting our learned lessons. “Traditions shows artist what not to do.” This seems to me like a lot of what Pollock was saying, about how we cannot use previous styles to accomodate current circumstances. Like before, I still think that tradition should not be forgotten. It should be learned from, and there is nothing wrong with being inspired by, or recreating a style. If art is to be truly free, all these rules and criticisms make it less so.

Another frustration was with Reinhardt’s idea of “more is less”. I don’t think that just because a person thinks upon, or changes/fixes, etc. a piece of art, that it becomes less. He says that the less skill a person uses, the more of an artist he is. I don’t think it matters what kind of utensils, media, or ideas you’re using. What it comes down to when the piece is finished is the drive behind it, the texture, the style. He denies all of these things.

I could on and on about this section of the reading. I probably should have left it simply at that I just don’t understand Reinhardt. His ideas are hard to be open minded to, but also hard to respond to because I’m not really sure of the kind of person he is, or what his drive was behind these ideas. Honestly, I think that he thinks too much on what is, and what isn’t, art. He talks about being a pure, and free, artist, yet he sets all these limitations and barriers up for himself. (And I honestly find his work a little boring.) He claims that art influenced by society is not real art, yet it seems he is completely influenced by society himself.