WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - Joey McFadden: Art Without Instruction

Episode Date: April 29, 2025

Joey T. McFadden, journalist, founder of the In Response… podcast and column, art critic at Fair Observer, and a Young Voices Contributor— argues in a new essay that restoring technical education, not just fighting wokeness, is key to reviving American artistic excellence.He joins Jillian Parks on WRFH to discuss. From 04/29/25.

This is Radio Free Hillsdale, 11.7 FM. I'm Julian Parks, and with me today is Joey McFadden, a contributor with young voices, post of the in-response podcast and managing editor of the Braver Angels NYC's substack. He's also a painter graduating from one of the best arts high schools in the country and then going on to major in painting at the Pratt Institute for College. This leads to my next bio point. He is the author of Art Without Instruction, published earlier this month with Modern Age Journal, which we will be discussing today. Thank you so much for joining us on the Hillsdale Radio Station today. Well, thank you so much for having me. I'm delighted to be here. And I do have a tiny little addendum to my bio.

Yeah, go for it. Young Voices has accepted me on their advanced track. So I'm not a contributor with them anymore. Now I am on their writer and commentator advanced track. So I'm taking the long term. I'm very happy about that. So that's great. So I'm still with them, but it's a different title now.

Well, that's very exciting. It's good to get the update. And congratulations to you. So in true Hillstale fashion, I'm actually going to start by asking us just to define our terms. I would love for you to give us a working definition of how you would define art before we get into some conversations about it. And then maybe talk about some bad definitions of art that you've been, that you've heard circulate in our current age. Oh, that's a really interesting question. I mean, Stephen Hicks and I had a conversation.

He's a philosopher at, I think it's Champaign Urbana in Illinois. way. And what he said to me in a podcast discussion is, you know, art is something that represents something about life, it reflects something about life. I think that's a pretty good definition. I do tend to be more sympathetic to non-objective art. However, you know, I think that some people, and I personally think that it does reflect something about life and maybe a more kind of esoteric or abstract way. But I think that bad definitions of art are, you know, something that pushes boundaries, as though that's art's inherent purpose. art has no definition or that it's sort of meaningless or that it's whatever you want it to be.

I tend to think that the aesthetic sensibility that comes from culture probably is united cross-culturally. I mean, it manifests differently in each culture. But something that gives us a sense of sensuous pleasure and shows us something about, you know, what it means to be a human being. I think that those themes sort of, you see them across various different cultures. In the article, you say that the fundamental problem with art right now, or at least one of them, is that students are graduating with art degrees with no real technical proficiency. For those who haven't read the piece yet, can you give us a short summary of what you think

happens culturally when artists venture to do art without instruction? Well, I think that what you end up getting is you get a lot of people who are sort of thinking about art. You get a lot of people who are kind of inept, like Sorep Amari, the journalist and critic. said this in his book, The New Philistines, it was written maybe like 10 years ago about how ineptitude in the art schools, you know, you don't quite have a framework or a structure or technical expertise to understand how to articulate a vision. So you get people coming out of the art schools who are inarticulate and don't know how to put together a vision. Now, I don't think this

represents every single art student. Some excel, regardless, there are some art schools that actually end up teaching anyway, you know, you know, some, some people come out of the system actually doing quite well. But, you know, without a rigorous technical training, you don't exactly have the ability to articulate a vision. You have an aside in the piece where you mentioned that during the late 20th century, art became distinct from technique. Can you expand a bit more on how that dislodging actually occurred and actually maybe some of the catalysts behind it? Well, you know, the arts had been typically taught in, you know, academy environment. So there are specialized schools for the arts prior to that.

They had been done through apprenticeships in the Middle Ages. But when the arts had entered the scholastic liberal environment, you know, the academic environment, sort of the modern university, scholars and artists kind of felt like they needed to sort of rectify the difference between the fine arts and academia. And so there came to be this idea that the theory behind art was supremely important and that the technical skills were sort of secondary to justify the existence of the fine arts and academia. And as a consequence of that idea, what unfolded over decades. It didn't happen right away. But what unfolded over decades was the degradation of technical skills. What do you think are some of the ways that we could have

avoided that? Was it inevitable? Or is it something that kind of we could have avoided, but we chose not to see the warning signs of? Well, I mean, I think that some art schools have maintained a very good structure. I don't think that we have to, like, I'm very opposed to the art Renewal Center, which is a very reactionary organization that wants the arts to go back to how everything was back, you know, in like the French Academy or something, and they want it to be very rigid and specific. You know, I believe that we need structure and freedom and that things should flow and move. So, I mean, some art schools have maintained, like El-Qad, for instance, where, like, the Art Students League in New York. I mean, there are some, there are many attiliers now

that have maintained structure. So I think. that the maintenance of structure is very important. And I think that by having law structure and lost standards, uh, that we have deviated from, uh, culture of excellence, essentially. But I do think we're actually seeing signs that maybe even in the art schools, the students are kind of getting their juzh back. I didn't talk about this in the article because I just, I, I've written it before, but I went back to my university for an art show. I was surprised by the work I was seeing. So I think that maybe even in the art schools, things are starting to turn around a little bit. You tell this sort of funny anecdote about your time at the Pratt Institute where if you were to

critique things that were just clearly wrong or mistaken, students would protest your critique by saying, but what if he wanted it to look that way? I think the story illustrates the kind of subjectivity in art that actually insulates pieces from honest critique or improvement. But what role does subjectivity actually have in art, if any? And how has it managed to to get this distorted? Well, I think that what students are trying to do when they say things like that is acknowledge that sometimes artists make intentional distortions. And I think that they're having a difficult time discerning the artist's intention in the

situation. You know, so if someone's trying to do something and they're failing to, that's when you need critique to help them understand where they didn't get it right. There is also, of course, this saying, you know, artist's subjective, which is this tired cliche that I just not think is not quite representative of reality and what people tend to think about art. And so that just sort of has made its way into people's consciousness. You know, art is sort of whatever you want. It can be anything you want.

There are no standards. You do whatever you want and everything's fine. The professor can teach whatever they want to or just sort of walk around to not do anything. And the sense that it's sort of about me and I can do whatever I want for me and express me. That can work, but within some kind of limitation. Like, even many abstract paintings are done with some kind of limiting principle, like a concern for the appearance of the painting and if people will like it. Is there a way to kind of temper or nuance that sentence,

the idea that art is subjective? Because it is such a prominent cultural phrase that we use. Is there any way to add on pieces to kind of make it more valuable? Or do we have to scrap it from the beginning? I think the danger in saying that art, is objective, is establishing some kind of like rigid standard that's set by the academy so that there's no freedom. I think that what we need to understand is that if we don't have a format in which to express ourselves where you've mastered that format or mastered those skills,

then you're not articulate. So that's where I think things need to be. And I think that just sort of random subjectivity where you just sort of try to draw the figure but don't know how. That's just, you know, it's not working. You know, if you really want to understand how to draw the figure well, you definitely should be expected to. Yes. Who are some current artists you think are particularly good or worth watching right now or maybe even some institutions that you think are producing exceptions to this technically

disappointing trend? Well, I really like Leo Frantini is a 24-year-old, 25-year-old artist. I just saw a show a few months ago. It was great. It was also Samantha Joy Groff is a great figure painter who also taught herself after art school. Salmantor is a great figure painter. Anthony Cuddy is another great figure painter. And if you look at them, you'll see that not all of them are, you know, painting in this classical way.

Right. But I think that they're making beautiful, ambitious paintings. You know, I think that, like I mentioned before, there's El-Qad, there's, you know, the New York Academy is pretty good. The Art Students League, you know, there are probably some other schools where there are still expectations. The atilias, which are like traditional art academies, some of them can be kind of stuffy and rigid. But, you know, in general, I would say that there's still pretty good institutions, and I'm glad that they exist. I do think that some of them can sometimes neglect composition, though, in favor of technical skill. But there's, you know, galleries in New York are also just so fair.

We're kind of in like a little mini figure painting renaissance. And it's a breath of fresh air. And I think the galleries realize that patrons and viewers want to see beautiful paintings. They don't want to look at stuff as ugly and alienating. For those of you who are just tuning in, you're listening to Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. My name is Gillian Parks and I'm here with Joey McFadden talking about his modern age journal essay published earlier this month titled Art Without Instruction. In this piece, you mentioned the crisis of free speech on college campuses. You talk about Trump, quote, restoring American culture by vanquishing wokeness in the arts and entertainment, or at least the conception that that's what's going to happen. What does wokeness in the arts look like concretely? And how does

vanquishing it separate itself from censorship in your mind? So what does art, wokeness look like in arts? Well, I think that in critique specifically, it's sort of this sensitivity around questioning anything related to race or gender or making. a piece that has something to do with race or gender and then no one commenting on it or saying anything about it because they're afraid of offending someone. So how does it manifest in, I'd say it manifests that way. It also manifests in terms of content. Again, I think we have been shifting away from this culturally. How does it separate from censorship? I mean, I personally think that the president is on a campaign of censorship right now, which is something I'm very

opposed to, I think that if people choose voluntarily to say we're not very interested in, you know, identity politics and arts anymore, that the culture should move away from that naturally on its own. I think if the administration pushes for that, I don't think that's censorship. But I think that if, like ICE recently released something on Twitter where they were saying that, like, illegal ideas that come across the border will be deported, you know. anything like that I've seen in opposition to. Yeah. Building off of that free speech crisis idea,

one thing we learn about here at Hillsdale is that some of the value of free speech and rhetoric itself is the ability to engage with bad ideas, whether they be false, unjust, ignoble, etc. Because by nature, good ideas help to better suppress or kill those bad ideas rather than simply stomping them out. I wonder how you feel about extrapolating that idea when it comes to extrapolating that idea when it comes to art. Is there an argument for allowing bad or, quote, woke art to circulate in order to amplify or magnify the power of good art? If so, how does that fit into

your argument of reform? And if not, why? Well, I mean, galleries have kind of like an editorial right to selection. You know, they get to decide what it is that they want to show. And that's not really censorship. I think that people being exposed to art that has all these identity themes in it probably just hired people out and they were kind of like, oh, we just don't want to look at this that much anymore. But I think that one of the hindrances to identity politics or sort of sensitivity around discussing it is that when you don't have free speech, then or people feel uncomfortable speaking, then you can't critique bad art. Right.

And look, you can make great art about issues like race and gender, but you need to be able to critique it adequately. Right. Right. At the end of the piece, you have a quote that says, conservatives have been almost entirely excluded from arts institutions. And with their exclusion has come the degradation of structure and standards of excellence. I would love for you to expand on this a little bit and then also present the case for

conservatives entering into and reforming existing institutions. institutions rather than completely abandoning ship and venturing to build their own. Oh, well, I'm absolutely in favor of reintegrating conservatives into all institutions that are dominated by liberals. I think it's better for the arts. I think it's better for knowledge. What was the first part of your question again? Can you repeat what you said? Yeah. Just the statement that conservatives have been almost entirely excluded from the arts institutions, expand on this. Like, what does this look like in our society? a lot of us aren't familiar with what's going on in arts institutions unless we're choosing to go after those sorts of news stories. And I'm curious what you've seen.

Oh, arts, I mean, arts institutions are just so dominated by the left. You know, there's all the left wing theory. I mean, I'm actually not really a very conservative person. I'm a registered Democrat, but I'm a friend of conservatives. I'm a friend of many Republicans and my centrist. But the left wing theory and its dominance and, you know, the way the conservatives feel silenced. I mean, when I was in art school, even black students who were not super left would tell me like that they were conservative and they had to hide their views. So, you know, I think that if they have the ability to openly express their values, you'll see that reflected in more policies. You'll see it reflected in more structured curriculum. Conservatives, by their nature, tend to value structure and order more and tradition. And if they have a greater presence in these institutions, then you'll naturally see those values reflected. in change in the institution and reform. Are you hopeful that that will happen? You know, a few years ago I would have said no.

I think perhaps that we might be at a period of right before such significant national reform or significant national change. I mean, David Brooks thinks that we're on the cusp of a civic renaissance. I think maybe. I think we may be in a period of political reintegration. But we're at the beginning of that. And that's something I focus on with Braver Angels as well. How do you see art changing or developing over the next 50 years or so?

Over the next 50 years. Oh, goodness, I can't predict that at all. I just can. I mean, I think there will probably be a lot more weird digital art with AI. Yeah, probably. But honestly, I'm not, you know, a fortune teller. I'm not. I just, I don't know.

If you were to present a hopeful vision of what you could see, things moving toward what would that look like? I would hope that the arts institutions get to a place where we can have, where there's standards of excellence every year in the art school. And students are coming out, feeling confident in their ability to articulate the vision that they want to articulate because they have this skills to do it. Right. What has it been like working as an artist in New York as a person with some more conservative views here and there? Even if you don't recognize yourself as a conservative, you tend to, you're siding with a lot of conservatives on the conversations surrounding art and creation.

Do you find that political identity or label to be a barrier within artistic spaces? Or have you found that people are open to having these conversations? You know, more people than you would expect. I'm friends with some Marxists who, and one of them is like very involved in art spaces. Interesting. I think a lot of left-leaning people. are starting to move on from hating conservatives. And, you know, I think a lot of people are more open-minded than one might realize. I still think that the word conservative, especially Republican,

is kind of career poison in some areas. That being said, I actually have not been pursuing art as aggressively as I've been pursuing writing just because of time limitations. So my experience as a professional artist in New York City at this time in my life has been a little limited. so I would not be able to answer your question as clearly. But I think that being an open conservative can be a hindrance. But I think things are starting to change. I mean, I was talking to the fine arts chair of Pratt recently. And she said something like, well, you know, our elite culture has alienated people and we need to be more open-minded.

And so I think things are starting to change in a more positive direction when people are starting to feel tired of hating each other. As that tide starts to turn, do you lean more on the side of encouraging people not to have political conversations in these areas? Or would you say that people should just kind of be brazen and bold and have these conversations even if they won't be received well? Well, it depends on the context. I mean, you know, some relationships are meant for discussion and other relationships are devoid of politics because you agree to disagree. Right. So, you know, to answer the question kind of broadly, I would say it really depends on the context. But I think the discussions about things like this are absolutely necessary. I think one of the reasons they don't happen in arts institutions more is because the people who would want to push what I believe in. And there are many liberals who do. Maybe they're more center sort of, you know, and the people who are really out there, weird ideas are much further left politically. But I just think there isn't an organized camp that says we would. like to push for more structure and more standards.

Right. Just as kind of a fun question to close out our interview today, I'm curious if you can give us who you think is shaping up to be the best artist of the 21st century. Oh, goodness. I mean, again, you know, it's interesting when people ask me if I have a favorite artist, I can't answer the question. You know, I tend not to have an individual favorite anything. Shaping up to be the best artist of the 21st century.

I'm going to have to keep my eyes open and see if I can figure that out. I just, I don't think I can give you a clear answer. Sorry. Do you have anybody that you're particularly impressed with, somebody maybe not up and coming, but somebody who's been putting out good work since even, maybe even the 20th century before then, people that you are, you're watching that maybe aren't young, but are seasoned and could maybe fulfill that role sometime? Aud Nurgium is a pretty amazing artist. What does he focus or she focus on?

Norwegian painter who. is kind of like a new version of Rembrandt almost. I'd recommend looking into him. He's one of the best figure painters in the world. Very cool. Are there any art magazines or sections of newspapers that you think are particularly great for people who are interested in cultural criticism

to be reading and keeping their eye on? You know, National Review has a great art critic. I really like Brian's criticism because Brian T. Allen, because he's not reactionary. He's open-minded, but still has a conservative point of view about the arts. So I really like National Review's art section. New Criterion is a nice magazine, too. You know, Brooklyn Rail is a good magazine.

The Wall Street Journal's page, a little descriptive. You know, the descriptive criticism is very big now. But, you know, yeah, I think those are good magazines. Our guest has been Joey McFadden, painter, journalist, and author of Art Without Instruction. Thank you so much for coming on the Hillsdale Radio Station today, Mr. McFadden. For those of you who are tuning in, I'm Julian Parks on Radio for Hillsdale, 101.7 FM. Thanks. I've appreciated being here.