James F. Cooper What Is Good Analysis

Art history is majorly overlooked; there is so much more to it than the study of art. What, how, and why to study construct a slippery slope for the creative community because the answers cannot be chalked up to one consensus. James F. Cooper’s arguments for viewing cultural idealistic artwork to redefine America are retro. He abandons the confrontation of problems within America and is persistent in wanting America to default to what it once was. Alan Wallach’s arguments on engaging with controversial artwork to gain information about America’s history are far more applicable to today’s society. The American public cannot afford to ignore societal issues brought up through art because they are manifested in all aspects of present society.

Cooper cannot be more wrong about art historians needing to inquire about art that satisfies particular cultural standards. First, defining what is ‘good’ is hard. Everyone originates from a different background, especially in the melting pot that is America, causing everyone to possess a different idea of what is ‘good.’ Uniform norms constrict those engaging in the study of art to have a singular viewpoint because a level of moral caliber forces one definition upon an audience and leaves no room to contest. In the words of Wallach, studying works that are controversial bestow researchers with the capacity to raise important questions, such as why the discourse from societal standards, as well as embrace a deeper understanding of the surrounding society. Taboo subjects explain the oppressed emotions of a community and investigating uncomfortable topics injects individuals with insight into thoughts previously disregarded. To understand controversial art, art historians must engage in every detail and develop their own thoughts, fully immersing themselves in the

Cooper’s notion about the correct way to view Hudson River School paintings, to view as the artist intended, limits an audience’s abilities. The correct way promotes a one-dimensional interpretation that emphasizes the artists’ intensions, hindering an audience’s creativity to think for themselves. In turn, this means that studying art history is pointless; all art already has an explicit explanation. In addition, Cooper fails to account for the artists who had no particular way they wanted their art to be studied. Wallach counteracts Cooper’s ideal technique by emphasizing that viewers do not obtain a true understanding, insight into what is more than obvious, by apathetically gazing. There must be engagement or the addition of other elements; otherwise, individuals are seeing only what is staring back at them. Exploring artwork needs to take on an active role and not a passive role like Cooper suggests. The deployment of materials in connection to works of art, like texts clarifying historical context, additional images, or artifacts, promotes and active role and yields a complete and comprehensive understanding of an artwork. For example, a non-religious individual could engage with contextual background on spiritual references to aid them when studying religious artwork. Thus, art historians should attack art through a multitude