Art-students: Where are they now?
Paul Reader
While there has been some discussion in this newsgroup, on theory and
practice in Art education, I would like to further discussion to the
longer term benefits of tertiary art education.
Every year thousands of fine-art/visual arts students graduate from
courses around the world.
In Australia, visual arts graduates, on average, remain unemployed
longer than other graduates. ( physics and mechanical engineering
students run a close second and third !). [Grad.Careers Council 1994]
In the longer term however, how do art-students careers develop ? What
lifestyle and professional practice decisions do these former students
make ? How useful have they found their studies, and how does their
knowledge and experience continue to grow? Its as interesting to me
whether they remain in the arts or move away to other things.
If you once completed a fine-art degree or diploma, have you ever
wondered what has happened to the other graduates or to your own
colleagues? Would you be interested in participating in research?
A web page has been created on this topic, and I've donated my own story
to kick things along.
http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/6627/FAgrad2.html
We could also discuss the subject here, or perhaps someone knows of a
more appropriate newsgroup for this discussion. In which case I would
be pleased to here about it.
Paul Reader, Dept. of Administration & Training, University of New
England. Armidale, Australia
mdeli
>While there has been some discussion in this newsgroup, on theory and
>practice in Art education, I would like to further discussion to the
>longer term benefits of tertiary art education.
>
>Every year thousands of fine-art/visual arts students graduate from
>courses around the world.
>
>In Australia, visual arts graduates, on average, remain unemployed
>longer than other graduates. ( physics and mechanical engineering
>students run a close second and third !). [Grad.Careers Council 1994]
>
>In the longer term however, how do art-students careers develop ?
Most art students don't develop a career in art. The basic reason is
simple.
INSTEAD OF TEACHING A CRAFT MOST ART SCHOOLS TEACH A CREED.
The average art teacher in university is an incompetent who got his
job to the exclusion of others by means of bullshit and connections.
The average art student can't learn to draw because his teachers
can't draw .
There is lots more to say on the matter, but I'll leave with this. An
artist who can't draw is like an accountant who can't add. If he ever
succeeds it is on the basis of bullshit and connections. That
requires talent, but not the sort required to produce artwork.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Erik Johnson
>Most art students don't develop a career in art. The basic reason is
>simple.
>INSTEAD OF TEACHING A CRAFT MOST ART SCHOOLS TEACH A CREED.
>
>The average art teacher in university is an incompetent who got his
>job to the exclusion of others by means of bullshit and connections.
>
>The average art student can't learn to draw because his teachers
>can't draw .
Damn Mani, you sure live in a black and white world to be spouting
such generalizations. At *every* school (art or otherwise) there are
many teachers... some (and sometimes too many) fit your
description. But there are *always* those who do not. And all it
takes is one good instructor to turn your life around.
And as you have been so quick to point out on so many occasions,
the financial or career success of an artist often has little basis in
skill. You also may have noticed that very few students of *any*
discipline actually end up with careers in their fields of study.
So instead of trying to derail the initial poster's post into yet
another Maniistic festival... why not tell us where you are
now (I assume you were once an art student to have such
strong biases?)
Erik Johnson
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.html
Marilyn
mdeli wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:26:35 +1000, Paul Reader
> <pre...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >While there has been some discussion in this newsgroup, on theory and
> >practice in Art education, I would like to further discussion to the
> >longer term benefits of tertiary art education.
> >
> >Every year thousands of fine-art/visual arts students graduate from
> >courses around the world.
> >
> >In Australia, visual arts graduates, on average, remain unemployed
> >longer than other graduates. ( physics and mechanical engineering
> >students run a close second and third !). [Grad.Careers Council 1994]
> >
> >In the longer term however, how do art-students careers develop ?
>
> simple.
>
> INSTEAD OF TEACHING A CRAFT MOST ART SCHOOLS TEACH A CREED.
>
> The average art teacher in university is an incompetent who got his
> job to the exclusion of others by means of bullshit and connections.
>
> The average art student can't learn to draw because his teachers
> can't draw .
>
> artist who can't draw is like an accountant who can't add. If he ever
> succeeds it is on the basis of bullshit and connections. That
> requires talent, but not the sort required to produce artwork.
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
Accountants don't need to know how to add. They have calculators for that
now, haven't you heard?
You are too dismissive, only some of what you
say is true and you never give examples,
you just condemn wholesale...
you universalize, you, you
oh forget it!
mdeli
>>Most art students don't develop a career in art. The basic reason is
>>simple.
>>INSTEAD OF TEACHING A CRAFT MOST ART SCHOOLS TEACH A CREED.
>>
>>The average art teacher in university is an incompetent who got his
>>job to the exclusion of others by means of bullshit and connections.
>>
>>The average art student can't learn to draw because his teachers
>>can't draw .
>
>Damn Mani, you sure live in a black and white world to be spouting
>such generalizations. At *every* school (art or otherwise) there are
>many teachers... some (and sometimes too many) fit your
>description.
"Sometimes too many," indeed.
If you read what I said, I used the word average. Frankly I should
have said most all and that amounts to too many.
> But there are *always* those who do not.
very few.
> And all it
>takes is one good instructor to turn your life around.
Where did I deny that?
>And as you have been so quick to point out on so many occasions,
>the financial or career success of an artist often has little basis in
>skill.
Wrong. Most capable artists make a good living. They are in great
demand. However, they rarely get shown next to the baloney in museums.
Most students think art is only what passes as modern academic art
because that is all they learn about.
> You also may have noticed that very few students of *any*
>discipline actually end up with careers in their fields of study.
No I haven't noticed.
>So instead of trying to derail the initial poster's post into yet
>another Maniistic festival... why not tell us where you are
>now (I assume you were once an art student to have such
>strong biases?)
Its bias to you because your'e part of the artzy fartzy festival.
mdeli
dewil...@mindspawn.com (D.E. Williams) wrote:
> One last thing I'm sure you've heard plenty: The best way to learn to
>do art (or almost anything) is to do it. The more you do art the greater your
>knowledge of yourself and your abilities (and, hopefully, your abilities will
>improve over time).
Learn by doing sounds fine until you see how art is taught today by
carrying this idea to the extreme.
Take drawing. 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 can
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.
Mani Deli
…no skill no art
zi...@interport.net
Marilyn <m...@islandnet.com> wrote:
I tried to write to Marilyn bu the email address does not work. If she
wants a reply, please write to me. I have a letter sitting here
unsent.
Gabriel
Anonymous
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> Most art students don't develop a career in art. The basic reason is
> simple.
>
> INSTEAD OF TEACHING A CRAFT MOST ART SCHOOLS TEACH A CREED.
>
> The average art teacher in university is an incompetent who got his
> job to the exclusion of others by means of bullshit and connections.
>
> The average art student can't learn to draw because his teachers
> can't draw .
>
> There is lots more to say on the matter, but I'll leave with this. An
> artist who can't draw is like an accountant who can't add. If he ever
> succeeds it is on the basis of bullshit and connections. That
> requires talent, but not the sort required to produce artwork.
Plenty of people make a living as medical illustrators, advertising or
publication designers, animators, and in other occupations that require
drawing skill, discipline, and talent. These are honorable professions,
and there are many schools that train for these jobs.
Students who wish to be "fine artists" are hoping to create forms that are
uniquely suited to their time, and are often aiming to insert their work
into the history of "advanced" art. It would be irresponsible not to teach
them that history, and not to challenge them to develop their own work in
light of that history. Fact is, twentieth century art history is not
inevitably grounded in traditional drawing skill.
There are far more folks trying to be artists than the current market will
support; that's the problem, not lack of drawing skills. The art schools
that have the highest percentage of graduates who actually make a living as
"advanced" artists are exactly the ones that emphasize critical discussion,
history and theory rather than recapitulating traditional techniques of
painting and drawing.
Marilyn
To Anonymous,
Re your comment, about too many people trying to be artists,
How about just "too many people" period?
I also heard on the public radio station, that there are too many books
being produced, and that there are not enough people to read them.
Sometimes, I think we are all suffering from the problems of
cultural glut and overpopulation. And just think, in 35 years there
will be twice as many of us!
Paul Reader
Thankyou all for your contributions so far; mdeli for the contention,
erik, for trying to get the locomotive back on the rails.
Let's look at the Australian stats. (A nice quite uncontentious
backwater) 1977 Visual arts turnover of about $39million (Myer
Foundation) $31M of that in presentation. DEET 1994 has around 4000
fine art students enrolled. Say we count them as Four year BAs then a
thousand new artists, skilled in art or "communication" are added to the
pool every year.
What I am hoping people will tell me is what these people are actually
doing, because I suspect we are missing the boat, by assuming fine art
schools popularity is because they effectively or ineffectively train
artists. I suspect these graduates go on to lead very meaningful lives,
and make an immense contribution to society. But what is it ?
This is where fine art graduates can help me ? Together with a bit of
research. We may be able to produce a carrot or a big-stick to make
some reforms in this field.
Thanks again, Paul Reader
mdeli
On 22 Sep 1997 07:19:14 +0200, nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
>> Most art students don't develop a career in art. The basic reason is
>> simple.
>>
>> INSTEAD OF TEACHING A CRAFT MOST ART SCHOOLS TEACH A CREED.
>>
>> The average art teacher in university is an incompetent who got his
>> job to the exclusion of others by means of bullshit and connections.
>>
>> The average art student can't learn to draw because his teachers
>> can't draw .
>>
>> There is lots more to say on the matter, but I'll leave with this. An
>> artist who can't draw is like an accountant who can't add. If he ever
>> succeeds it is on the basis of bullshit and connections. That
>> requires talent, but not the sort required to produce artwork.
>
>Plenty of people make a living as medical illustrators, advertising or
>publication designers, animators, and in other occupations that require
>drawing skill, discipline, and talent. These are honorable professions,
>and there are many schools that train for these jobs.
And these are among the fine artists of today and the past..
>Students who wish to be "fine artists" are hoping to create forms that are
>uniquely suited to their time, and are often aiming to insert their work
>into the history of "advanced" art.
Students can wish whatever they want. There is no "advanced art." Art
changes it doesn't advance. The one thing a living artist can't avoid
is being modern.
> It would be irresponsible not to teach
>them that history, and not to challenge them to develop their own work in
>light of that history. Fact is, twentieth century art history is not
>inevitably grounded in traditional drawing skill.
It is grounded in no skill what-so-ever. The slanted art history
taught in modern academic institutions takes hardly any contemporary
art into account and gives the impression that only its list of
worthies are artists.
>There are far more folks trying to be artists than the current market will
>support; that's the problem, not lack of drawing skills.
There are more unskilled folks trying to be artists. Its not a market
problem. Its their problem.
> The art schools
>that have the highest percentage of graduates who actually make a living as
>"advanced" artists are exactly the ones that emphasize critical discussion,
>history and theory rather than recapitulating traditional techniques of
>painting and drawing.
They don't know technique etc..
I suspect that the institutions that produce your sucessful "advanced
artists" who learn what you call critical discussion and theory
(University Artspeak) turn out about 90% successes 2% of the time.
As to art history I know what's happening and its not impressive. Nor
are the shows of "advanced artists."
Mani DeLi
Those who are into self-expression without skill are into
self-delusion.
mdeli
On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 03:01:54 -0700, Marilyn <m...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:26:35 +1000, Paul Reader
>> <pre...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> >While there has been some discussion in this newsgroup, on theory and
>> >practice in Art education, I would like to further discussion to the
>> >longer term benefits of tertiary art education.
>> >
>> >Every year thousands of fine-art/visual arts students graduate from
>> >courses around the world.
>> >
>> >In Australia, visual arts graduates, on average, remain unemployed
>> >longer than other graduates. ( physics and mechanical engineering
>> >students run a close second and third !). [Grad.Careers Council 1994]
>> >
>> >In the longer term however, how do art-students careers develop ?
>>
>> Most art students don't develop a career in art. The basic reason is
>> simple.
>>
>> INSTEAD OF TEACHING A CRAFT MOST ART SCHOOLS TEACH A CREED.
>>
>> The average art teacher in university is an incompetent who got his
>> job to the exclusion of others by means of bullshit and connections.
>>
>> The average art student can't learn to draw because his teachers
>> can't draw .
>>
>> There is lots more to say on the matter, but I'll leave with this. An
>> artist who can't draw is like an accountant who can't add. If he ever
>> succeeds it is on the basis of bullshit and connections. That
>> requires talent, but not the sort required to produce artwork.
>>
>> Mani DeLi
>> ...no skill no art
>
>Accountants don't need to know how to add. They have calculators for that
>now, haven't you heard?
Accountants who deal in the abstract money earned by most incompetent
artists don't need to add. In fact the don't even need calculators.
>You are too dismissive, only some of what you
>say is true and you never give examples,
SO if you have anything to say tell us what is true and false.
>you just condemn wholesale...
Some things need to be condemned wholesale. I not presenting scholarly
articles here. You on the other hand manager to say nothing.
>you universalize, you, you
>oh forget it!
Well many art students "forget it." They find out the cost later.