Is art school worthless?
Karl Zipser
and get a Ph.D. If you want to be a doctor, you should go to medical
school. But if you want to be an artist, will art school help you? Only
about half of the successful artists I know went to art school;
furthermore, of those who did go to art school, their formal education
seems only incidental to their success. What do you think? Is art
school worthless? Read more at
http://www.zipser.nl/2006/10/is-art-school-worthless.html
Karl Zipser
"I am an art school drop out. I thought that I could make it in the
industry by finding someone to train or learn from one on one.
"Unfortunately, this is much harder than I expected. I'm not sure of a
lot of things and definitely seek help for a direction. If there is
anything that you can recommend to helping someone in my situation get
started, please advise.
"Thank you,
"Courtney"
Karl Zipser
Hi Courtney,
You raise an important point -- outside of art school, it is difficult
to find a teacher to learn from one-on-one. This is a fact of life
today. Here are four comments/suggestions:
1. Most of the artists that I know who are successful (and by that I
mean that they can make living from their art, or almost can do so) had
to figure things out on their own -- and that includes the art school
graduates.
2. If you feel that you have the talent to be an artist, the most
important thing is to continue to believe in yourself. A key part of
this is to continue to provide evidence to yourself that your art is
valuable -- that is, keep making work that you find good. Even if you
need to do a different day job, don't stop with your art. Otherwise,
give up on art and do something different (almost every other job is
easier, from an economic standpoint).
3. Read about art techniques. Max Doerner, Ralph Mayer, and of course,
Cennino Cennini are great. All dead, but great nonetheless.
4. Try to maintain contacts with other artists who inspire you, even if
you don't work together. A community can be valuable in maintaining
inspiration. But I also suggest that you choose your community with
care. Trying to take in the whole art world can destroy inspiration.
Karl Zipser
Bob C
>
> 3. Read about art techniques. Max Doerner, Ralph Mayer, and of course,
> Cennino Cennini are great. All dead, but great nonetheless.
>
Based on my own personal experiences, I think a person can learn more
technique watching a 1-3 hour demonstration by an artist who is really
good at doing that kind of thing than by reading an entire book, even a
good one. This is not to say that reading about technique has no value,
but it can't compare with actually watching somebody do it.
I didn't go to art school, but I have taken a lot of classes at a
variety of places, and I've almost always learned a lot from them. On
the other hand, it is way more expensive than checking a book out of the
library, and unless you're looking for instruction in the mechanics of
very specific techniques, the best way to learn will always be
experience and experimentation.
- Bob C.
Karl Zipser
swim on a sofa."
And yet, I've learned a great deal from his book. Reading a good
technique book is not like reading a normal book. It is more like
living with that book, reading it over and over and over, experimenting
and working yourself in the process. I'd love to watch Jan van Eyck
paint, but he's dead. Cennino Cennini's book gets better every time I
read it. So learning from a book is not idea, but it can be valuable.
Ashley Clarke
news:1160118870.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I went to "Art School" and played it by Ear...
...it`s just what I do: whether I`m a "success" or not!
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
Karl Zipser
success should be that the person continues to be an artist despite the
inherent difficulties. A lot of people who go to art school end up
doing something that is not directly related to art. That's what got me
wondering about the effectiveness of art schools.
Curlycue
k...@zipser.nl says...
>
>A lot of people who go to art school end up
>doing something that is not directly related to art.
The same could be said for people who obtain BA or MA
degrees in any subject. There are "art schools" where
some poorly informed go believing it will make them
into artists. Then there are 4-year colleges and
universities where the majority of people wanting an
education go. What the latter do with the education
they recieve is totally up to them - regardless of
what degree they end up with, including those with
BFA or MFA degrees.
Curlycue
says...
>
>In article <1160165388.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>k...@zipser.nl says...
>>
>>A lot of people who go to art school end up
>>doing something that is not directly related to art.
Coincidentally, here is a really fine article on
this very subject, from which I qoute:
http://artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2124
"But by the late 20th century, most American artists were studying within the
university system. As art education was retrofitted onto an existing structure
of course requirements, accredited liberal-arts programs, and rigid time
schedules, the focus changed from teaching technical proficiency to creating
professional artists who would understand the conceptual, the contextual, and
the commercial aspects of a career in art. Under this new system,
critiques - referred to as 'crits' - have supplanted detailed technical
instruction in many classrooms, and artist-teachers are encouraged to develop
students’ imaginations rather than their skills. "I’m here to teach you to
think - and to see," explained Josef Albers to his Yale University pupils,
including Eva Hesse, in the 1950s."
Rex
Dan Fox wrote:
> "Karl Zipser" <k...@zipser.nl> wrote:
> > Ph.D. in Neuroscience.
>
> In other words, no.
What a condescending little comment.
> This the reason nearly every fine artist of any repute either went to art
> school or studied with a master for years, or both. The exception is the
> genius like Francis Bacon, but these people are rare.
Nonsense. What is rare are people who are willing to repudiate a
failed education.
Good repute? With whom? Galleries, museums, the press, and the
buying public do not care at all, not at all, whether you have a
degree in art. It simply does not matter. It never did. It never
will. I know a lot of artists who make good livings at
art. About half of them went to art school, and half of those,
like me, dropped out in disgust. (I lasted one day.) this idea
that "It is really hard to survive as an artist" is one of the
biggest lies ever told. The reason it is so hard for so many is
because their work is crap.
However, if you want to get a job teaching at an accredited
school, then you have to have a degree. You evidently don't have
to know spit about painting and drawing, but you have to have
that credential. That's like asking a wolf to get certified
by the squirrel board. That's what's really going on in art
schools throughout America.
How many MFAs are cranked out of colleges in the US alone each
year? 20,000? Putting aside the question of how many ever work in
ANY art career, at those kinds of numbers, we should expect a
cultural renaissance, but I see none. I see art limping along in
the face of a culture that is unraveling. Art education in
America, with a few notable exceptions, is a fraud. The
administrators know it. The teachers know it. but thousands of
students are given false hope every year. It's a travesty.
Rex
***
http://www.rexotica.com
Karl Zipser
"nearly every fine artist of any repute either went to art school or
studied with a master for years, or both"
is questionable. If we go back to the issue of "success" and define
success as being able to make a living today as an artist, I think your
statement is qualitatively false. It is probably also false for famous
19th and 20th c. artists, although this is something I would like to
see numbers for. You make a strong statement, but provide no evidence
for it. The part where you say "studied with a master for years" might
make your statment valid, depending on how you define this. This is an
issue that deserves further discussion.
Karl Zipser
"'It is really hard to survive as an artist' is one of the
biggest lies ever told. The reason it is so hard for so many is
because their work is crap."
This is a challenging and inspirational remark. I expect I will discuss
this further on my blog, referring to you of course.
Ashley Clarke
of the appreciation and history. After four years in full-time education
personal perspectives about what it was all about had changed.
It left me with a broader perspective to consider next time I valued
a work of art under scrutiny!
This may be damaging to some individuals who`s place is at home
with what they are used to and can perfect a style to fit their immediate
environment successfully.
There may be no such thing as art!
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
anarc...@gmail.com
I think art school might be good for some people and
not others. I have actually seen interesting work done
by people with MFAs. It would be more efficient, though
to train artists in a vocational or trade school setting,
rather than put them through the very expensive hot
air and baloney of a traditional liberal education. That
is, teach them the techniques, show them what other
people have done (or where to find it) and turn them
loose, before educational culture does them serious
harm.
knokney
Karl Zipser wrote:
> If you want to be a scientist, you really should study at a university
> and get a Ph.D. If you want to be a doctor, you should go to medical
> school.
You CANT work as a doctor without a PHD its the Law!
> But if you want to be an artist, will art school help you? Only
> about half of the successful artists I know went to art school;
> furthermore, of those who did go to art school, their formal education
> seems only incidental to their success. What do you think? Is art
> school worthless? Read more at
> http://www.zipser.nl/2006/10/is-art-school-worthless.html
Art is about selling a product.
When I went to artschool in my opinion they didn't even teach the
basics. They don't teach you how to make an archival product or how to
controll the media to get the effect that you want. And the reason is
obvious! What hangs in big galleries and is given the big rewards is
always something "new" often a rehash of dadaism or something "surreal"
propped up with big theories. In order to make the next splash of
dadaism its best to not know how to paint or do sculpture well since it
is usually 'beginers" mistakes and not intenially anarchism that finds
favor with the latent critics... This also allows rich kids, sexually
attractive folks (mostly male -> you figure this one out,<) to get
ahead in the art world. If they were taught how to paint and sculpt
their kitch and sentimental impulses would be obvoius. Only
intentionally anarchic and destructive artists could be hailed as dada,
and only surrealistist could create something surre3al rather than
thats surreal that someone would consider that art art.
knokney
Karl Zipser wrote:
> My reply is:
>
> Hi Courtney,
> 3. Read about art techniques. Max Doerner, Ralph Mayer, and of course,
> Cennino Cennini are great. All dead, but great nonetheless.
About all Doerner, Mayer, and Blockx(very important you left him out)
is tell you how to make a painting that wont fall to pieces. Cennini
is a very good historical reference to see how painting was done back
then. The first three are mainly just chemists not artists! They can
teach you to paint like Hopper or Magritte, but they don't really teach
"old master" secrets. Blockx touches the surface and if you take the
three he has some of the best philosophical advice on painting in my
opinion. Otherwise The obvious and easy choices to read are Leonardo Da
Vinci who tells you how to paint in his notebooks, - there is a
separate book sold with just his notes on how to paint- and of course
the very odd and surreal 50 secrets of magic craftsmanship By Dali
(both D's). For old flemish master technique look up the De Mayerne
manuscript, there are in fact many books written from the past I just
glanced the surface personally. Cennino's book predates the flemish
masters I think and is really before "oil painting' took off... Or its
written before Hokney would say everyone started using convex mirrors
and dark-rooms LOL...
knokney
But you do realise that nobody is going to let you touch their brain
without a PHD is the law! And in many fields the reason for the PHD is
the rules that apply to the field...
I imagine if there was no law requiring lawyers to go to lawschool or
pass the bar they wouldn't bother... There ARE many people who argue
good who couldn't or won't study their brains out to get a phd in any
given field...
There are many in alternative medicine, entreprenurialship who have no
credentials whatsoever...
CB
Karl - re. the education, you have to take into account that prior to the
mid 20th Century drawing and design was an integral part of the school
curriculum. As were subjects that (should) form the basis for artistic
thinking, such as languages, literature, and history. This was especially
true in 19th Century France. Even supposedly "self-taught" artists like van
Gogh - who spent some, but not a lot - of time in the academic/atelier
system were well versed (by modern standards) both in the craft and the
theory of art, and the liberal arts. To get a sense of this, study artists'
juvenilia (where it exists), such as van Gogh's and Lautrec's, and their
letters or other writings. Young people were also much more exposed to
competent art - from the work that hung in the family homes to the
decoration in schools and public buildings. So I think you would be hard
pressed to find many great artists prior to the early 20th who didn't (in
one form or another) have significantly more artistic/liberal arts training
than is now the case. As for the rest of the 20th C., the jury is still out
on that one, it takes at least a century to sort the wheat from the chaff.
As for whether one makes a living from it or not, who cares? Many didn't
(for example van Gogh, Manet, Bazille, Cezanne, Cassatt all had other
means), but their work is still highly influential.
CB
Mani Deli
>"Karl Zipser" <k...@zipser.nl> wrote:
>> Ph.D. in Neuroscience.
>
>In other words, no.
>
>The foundation courses you get in art school, drawing in particular, are
>crucial to becoming a competent artist.
Sounds good doesn't it! The foundation in most all art schools are
useless taught by instructors who don't have a foundation.
>This means regular classes, lots of
>drawing, lots of teaching, over a period of time.
Lots of teaching, sure!
>Learning to draw is like
>learning to play the piano.
Yes, you start with paper and something to draw with. Now here is the
model and the teacher in essence says "do" and everyone proceeds.
The equivalent in music would be; the teacher sits you in front of the
piano and says "play." No scales, no lessons, no passing on of
knowledge. Now after two weeks of trial and error you have figured out
how to play "jingle bells" and the teacher tells you, "see, you Kow
how to play, now all you have to do is practice and you’ll do art."
You can practice till you drop. It would be a huge waste of time to
try to figure out the basic knowledge which took the best minds
centuries to figure out. It would be as stupid as everyone having to
reinvent the wheel for himself.
>Books and workshops contribute very little.
If you learn from the books Fox recommends.
Fox who for all his pedigrees and supposed learning, can't draw.
Art schools where they teach something are rare these days.
Mani Deli
Rex
> "Rex" <r...@rexotica.com> wrote:
> > Dan Fox wrote:
> > > "Karl Zipser" <k...@zipser.nl> wrote:
> > > > Ph.D. in Neuroscience.
> > >
> > > In other words, no.
> >
> > What a condescending little comment.
> >
>
Nice try, Dan. You're probably a nice guy in real life, but you're on
the other side of the playing field on this one. Too many of my friends
have gone from bright and beautiful to incompetent know-it-alls at the
hands of art "education." You could use a little doubt and
introspection on this point.
Rex
***
http://www.rexotica.com
Rex
Mani Deli wrote:
> See my painted comment on the matter
>
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/Works6.jpg
One of my favorites. It's called "Art Degree, Take One?"
Rex
***
http://www.rexotica.com
Erik A. Mattila
> "Rex" <r...@rexotica.com> wrote:
>
>>Dan Fox wrote:
>>
>>>"Karl Zipser" <k...@zipser.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ph.D. in Neuroscience.
>>>
>>>In other words, no.
>>
>>What a condescending little comment.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
> You been hitting the juice again, Rex?
"Old Overholt" by the looks of things....
On another front, I watched "Antique Road Show" today and saw a Maurice
Prendergast monotype evalued at 30k. Is the art market that good?
zeno
anything else. Sometimes you need to translate intellectual notions into
your own applications.
http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/teaching/nds/ws98/
Find an artist whose work you admire and find out how that person learned
to do what they do.
Zeno
Karl Zipser wrote:
> If you want to be a scientist, you really should study at a university
> and get a Ph.D. If you want to be a doctor, you should go to medical
> school. But if you want to be an artist, will art school help you? Only