Back to School
mdeli
academic artists.
Here they will get about two weeks worth of information for every six
months of time spent there. And of course they will part with a
tuition fee in order to be taught the following mantra of quaint
aphorisms as a substitute for what their teachers don't know. (in much
more long-winded form of course. They have to kill all that time)
- modernism is something new.
-the term realism when used as a negative description is to be
understood as merely a photographic rendition of reality.
- representation in painting needs to be abandoned.
- people who cannot draw have greater freedom in expressing themselves
than people who can.
- art since Impressionism makes better use of color than it did
before.
·-permanent rebellion against the past is a moral artistic requirement
-neurotic or antisocial people are necessarily better artists.
- modern Academic Art operates outside of the commercial economic
sphere
-Art history is divided into antiquated realism and modern
abstraction.
-There is fine art, which conforms to precepts demanded of our Modern
Museums and the majority of teaching institutions and then there is
all that 'other stuff'. That is, painting not holy-critic approved
like illustration, animation and anything to do with commercial art,
etc.
At the conclusion of their studies students will receive a certificate
attesting to their intellectual and artistic superiority. This should
serve as much an asset to getting work and public acceptance, as it
has for all those other certified failures out there.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
James W. Foster
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:37e186a4...@news.psi.ca...
<SNIP>
> - modernism is something new.
No, I was never taught that at art college...
> -the term realism when used as a negative description is to be
> understood as merely a photographic rendition of reality.
...or that...
>
> - representation in painting needs to be abandoned.
...I had one tutor who thought like that, but we just ignored her.
>
> - people who cannot draw have greater freedom in expressing themselves
> than people who can.
Most of my drawing tutors have taught exactly the opposite. We have been
shown a wide variety of drawing techniques from different cultures and given
a slight understnding of why these cultures choose to draw that way. It's
then up to us to pursue them further. Maybe this is why my college hasn't
that good a reputation - they're too sensible...
>
> - art since Impressionism makes better use of color than it did
> before.
>
Nope, wasn't told that either, maybe my tutors are slacking.
> ·-permanent rebellion against the past is a moral artistic requirement
Myself, I'd say that rebellion against the present would be more useful.
Other than that my classmates seem to want to mimic the recent past, maybe
it's a nice security blanket, I don't know.
>
> -neurotic or antisocial people are necessarily better artists.
No, they just make more interesting subjects for Hollywood.
>
> - modern Academic Art operates outside of the commercial economic
> sphere
And Timothy Dalton was a really good 007.
>
> -Art history is divided into antiquated realism and modern
> abstraction.
In my experience, there seems to be a bit of a backlash going on with this
idea. I would also never fully trust such an extreme simplification, and
only a lazy or naive student would.
>
> -There is fine art, which conforms to precepts demanded of our Modern
> Museums and the majority of teaching institutions and then there is
> all that 'other stuff'. That is, painting not holy-critic approved
> like illustration, animation and anything to do with commercial art,
> etc.
The one year of studying Fine Art has so far only taught me three things.
I'm rubbish at painting with watercolours, people who get drunk then smash
their hand through a window and smear the halls of residence in blood then
claim it's art are twits and there is no such thing as Fine Art.
>
> At the conclusion of their studies students will receive a certificate
> attesting to their intellectual and artistic superiority. This should
> serve as much an asset to getting work and public acceptance, as it
> has for all those other certified failures out there.
If people fail after graduating, it's for a reason. Some people sink, some
people swim, some people tread water. That's life. Darwin knew about it
long ago.
-james
Dan Fox
he's very perceptive, and has the verbal ability to communicate his
observations. (But I think Timothy Dalton really *was* the best Bond since
Sean Connery... unfortunately nobody else does.)
Mani doesn't have an art degree (according to his posts), so I suppose his
whole anti-art-school rant is envy and sour grapes. Kinda sad.
Art schools and art teaching do vary a lot in the US. The good schools have
high standards and emphasize basic skills, along with a solid foundation in
the liberal arts. One of my daughters is a sophomore at School of Visual
Arts in New York - I did a lot of research before agreeing to pay the $25,
000 a year it costs to go there, believe me.
As its catalog shows, the SVA fine arts curriculum is very heavy on basic
drawing, figure drawing, and painting coursework. There is also an extensve
liberal arts and humanities requirement. The school is rated second in the
US (behind Yale), and the students' work shows it. (Of course there are
lazy students who do nothing, but that occurs in any school.)
I looked at the SVA catalog again, after reading some of the Color Theory
posts here. There is no course in Color Theory at SVA. These concepts do
tend to get taught at the hobby level, in the US at least, but that's
another discussion.
--
Dan
'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
http://www.danfoxart.com
mdeli
>Mani doesn't have an art degree (according to his posts), so I suppose his
>whole anti-art-school rant is envy and sour grapes. Kinda sad.
I attended art school mostly on scholarships. One was an academy of
bullshit the other The Art Students League (where one could choose a
teacher and the only grade was your success as a professional. )
Art has always been good to me. That's sour grapes for you.
>Art schools and art teaching do vary a lot in the US.
Yes, and its the business of the student to find a teacher who can
teach. and a place where he leaves with a craftsmanly ability to find
work.
>The good schools have
>high standards and emphasize basic skills, along with a solid foundation in
>the liberal arts. One of my daughters is a sophomore at School of Visual
>Arts in New York - I did a lot of research before agreeing to pay the $25,
>000 a year it costs to go there, believe me.
>
>As its catalog shows, the SVA fine arts curriculum is very heavy on basic
>drawing, figure drawing, and painting coursework.
Most every art school has these labels in their catalog. Go look at
the student's exhibitions at year end. Mostly dirty paper and canvas.
>There is also an extensve
>liberal arts and humanities requirement. The school is rated second in the
>US (behind Yale), and the students' work shows it.
Yale and that idiot Alber's influence has ruined lots of students.
Never seen anyone come out of there who could draw. Great school for
Museum employees, teachers of the furtherment of failure and Artzy
fartzies.
(Of course there are
>lazy students who do nothing, but that occurs in any school.)
And there are teachers who don't know anything who once were lazy
students.
>I looked at the SVA catalog again, after reading some of the Color Theory
>posts here. There is no course in Color Theory at SVA. These concepts do
>tend to get taught at the hobby level, in the US at least, but that's
>another discussion.
>
Your work doesn't even reach the hobby level. I suggest you teach at
Yale.
Dan Fox
> Your work doesn't even reach the hobby level. I suggest you teach at
> Yale.
I have.
mdeli
Your work doesn't even reach the hobby level. I suggest you teach at
Yale.
Mani DeLi