Tim Lefens Lecture

Got a bit backed up this semester with posting things I began in Microsoft Word. If only they'd create a shortcut button to have it save directly to blogger. Regardless, I attended the Tim Lefens lecture, and below are the notes I jotted down:

Tim Lefens
-Death bed theory: if you had 4 hours left of living, and you’re in a room with a comfy bed and one wall- what painting would you want on that wall?
-It is necessary for one’s own art to transcend death.
-Losing yourself is essential to zone crossing/making work that is less literal.
-Finds ways to remind himself of near-death experience, wall-less space, ultimate freedom.
-Truncated pyramid: only so many people can be what they always wanted to be (astronaut, ballerina, etc) and what Warhol and other “joke artists” did was make it so anyone could be an artist, clipping the top off the “pyramid.”
-Clement Greenberg is an acquaintance. Figures.
-If you know you’re looking at art, that you are in an art space like a gallery, it’s not successful.  You’ve got to be completely gone.
-You need to put your body into some insane state (fasting) to then magically get inspired to make this wonderful art that allegedly transcends everything.
-Not all great art is great.
-High goal of art is to “go for the awesome” and shock/surprise everyone, including yourself.
-Socio-political issues are just icing on the cake that is art.  All the meaning we tie to it is contextual.
-He faced anxiety when learning of his imminent vision loss, but it’s just an example of “letting go” theory- he can still paint, he painted in monochromes anyway.
-“Cool Cat Refrigerator Repair Men” are a key audience in judging whether or not people get the work.
-Treated CP students as hot sources ready to be tapped.
-Art therapy art is not valid, to Lefens.
-artrealization.org for student examples…. “better than art school art.”
-We are damaged as typical students because we are so influenced by what’s happening around us.
-“High Art” is complete openness to everything, uninhibited by everything.

As a person- Likeable, until he went off on some tangent I completely disagreed with.  He completely dismissed art therapy as a nonsensical profession, assuming that all therapists have no background in the fine or applied arts.  I found it interesting that there were no images- he described a few paintings, which he described as what art is (clearly a Clement Greenberg disciple) but there was nothing tangible for us to explore as an audience.  This was entirely a one man show.  He reminded me a bit of Robin Williams, and I almost expected him to pull out a red nose or rainbow suspenders. I’m not even sure he knew or expected there to be questions asked after his lecture.
He describes his students’ painting as “good”-WHAT IS A GOOD PAINTING?  Clearly he’s judging them SOLELY by what context they are being created in.  Clearly, he is disenchanted with the fine arts as a professional, technical and universally acceptable field. 

*Should typical people be making art using the a.r.t. technique?
*Are other artist’s not as valuable?
*Is making something consciously, wrong?
*Are we not making assumptions about the disabled, something that is not quite p.c.?
*We are essentially treating them as being “special” people.
*This technique seems entirely PRODUCT based. His focus is on how brilliant and marvelous these paintings are- I’m not drinking the Kool-Aid.  The PROCESS is evident, yes, but each process is designed to yield this beautiful product.


I wonder what the A.R.T. participants would have to say about him and his theories.