Decline of Art Education
Noumenon
materials and techniques ("Artist's Handbook", etc.) as well as
his regular & useful contributions to "Artist's Magazine".
But I was wondering what people think about his article on Art Education
in USA.
==== Few excerpts from his article
"The Decline of the Visual Education of Artists, and the Remedy":
STUDIO ARTS STUDENTS ARE NO LONGER RECEIVING A COMPLETE or useful visual
education.
Art is now taught as a subset of philosophy.
[...]
Today, a painting class may likely consist of the instructor tossing out
a few ideas for the students to consider, or validating an idea the
student proposes.
This is followed by a few days or weeks of painting, with or without
instruction in class or "independently," and ending with several hours
of "critiques."
A "critique" typically consists of a deconstruction of meaning, intent,
and philosophy - and possibly politics - but not a consideration of the
visual and/or physical construction of the picture.
[...]
Since the definition of art is entirely subjective, the meaning of any
word used during the critique can be changed to mean whatever the
teacher or student painter wants it to mean.
A shape or a color in a painting can mean whatever the painter wants it
to mean, or whatever the picture's interpreter wants it to mean
regardless of what the painter intended.
[...]
BECAUSE OF THE PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALIZATION OF ART-MAKING, craftsmanship
has been downplayed in higher education. Simultaneously, the traditional
fine arts curriculum has broken down.
[] studio students, seeing this separation, do not learn to connect what
they are making now with what was made in the past.
[...]
[] criteria for judging the merits of the student's work [] may change
from day to day or week to week, depending on the vagaries of the
contemporary gallery scene.
These verbal gymnastics consequently can compensate for a lack of skill,
and rhetoric - oral and written - can outstrip both picture-making
skills and artisanship.
[...]
an art student simply cannot learn without also doing: make the picture,
make the sculpture [] and you [] will learn much more than if you sit
dozing in a dimly-lit auditorium or crowded into an overheated seminar
room, half-listening to the drone of someone's voice and being more
worried about the grade than understanding
[...]
Etc. Etc.
{too much to quote!}
--
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
chris
the pictures that accompany the text. I assume that these are the sorts
of paintings ARC would like to see the world producing - but what are
they? Almost invariably beautifully drawn & painted images of
child-like women in submissive poses wearing goofy clothing. I'll leave
the philosophical subtext to your imagination :)
CB
artangel
moved out of the documentation business and into the world of ideas.
(The invention of the camera took care of that) There are new
materials available to the artist such as the computer programs and
other technilogical devices. Painting, sculpture, drawing and
architecture have been re-thought. This does not negate the past and
the glorious art produced. We cannot however, use past creations as
the sole judge of todays art. The art schools have done a good job. I
just wish there were more of them.
Al B. Traus
caldwell...@gmail.com says...
>Students are exposed to a much broader education than previously -
>especially in the States - and as long as the bright ones know how to
>carry on their task to accomplish goals they are able to set for
>themselves, I for one would say the schools have done their jobs. That
>the not-so-bright wind up slinging fries is just social darwinism, it
>happens in all fields.
>
>Chris
Well said and here, coincidentally, is an article I
just finished reading online that is relevant in the
sense that it's directed at contemporary classroom
education, and not just in the USA:
http://insidehighered.com/views/2005/05/17/flanders
While it's not specifically about art education, the
principles apply. When I was obtaining my art degrees,
computers were a "thing of the future." I can only
imagine how my education would have been enhanced by
having access to today's technologies.
Cheers.
Andrew D
"artangel" <cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
> When will we accept the 20th century and move into the 21st. Art has
> moved out of the documentation business and into the world of ideas.
> (The invention of the camera took care of that)
The camera can just as easily be used to convey abstract ideas - and six
year old kids have were producing things equivalent to some "modern art"
since well before Pollock got drunk and kicked a can of paint across a
canvas.
> There are new
> materials available to the artist such as the computer programs and
> other technilogical devices. Painting, sculpture, drawing and
> architecture have been re-thought. This does not negate the past and
> the glorious art produced. We cannot however, use past creations as
> the sole judge of todays art. The art schools have done a good job. I
> just wish there were more of them.
How good a job they've done can only be assessed by considering the
success of the graduates. Do most, some or very few end up earning their
living from art? According to recent posts, it appears very few do. If
this is the case, then the schools are failing their students.
--
Andy D.
chris
Andrew D wrote:
> How good a job they've done can only be assessed by considering the
> success of the graduates. Do most, some or very few end up earning
their
> living from art? According to recent posts, it appears very few do.
If
> this is the case, then the schools are failing their students.
>
1) that's very dependent on the school and
2) very dependent on the students themselves and their own goals.
w/r to 2) how many philosophy grads become philosophers? how many lit
grads become professional writers? How many music grads become
professional musicians? Guess I was brought up to believe that if you
wanted to study for a specific job, you went to tech school or got
trained in the field; if you wanted to expand your understanding and
delve into new ways of thought, you went to university, and hoped for
the best after. But in either case, what you acquire during that
period, and what you accomplish with it after, are entirely your
responsibility. If you aren't ready to take it on, stay in high school.
CB
Thur
"Al B. Traus" <bird...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:428b589e$1...@nntp.zianet.com...
"and a new informational literacy will be needed, with an
emphasis on judgment, synthesis, clear thinking, and what
author Robert McHenry calls a "genial skepticism" about
the veracity and quality of the information a mouse-click away."
Hooray for that.
Some different tasks to set, some different qualities to judge,
but the task of the educator remains the same.
--
Thur
Mani Deli
wrote:
>
>Andrew D wrote:
>> How good a job they've done can only be assessed by considering the
>> success of the graduates. Do most, some or very few end up earning
>their
>> living from art? According to recent posts, it appears very few do.
>If
>> this is the case, then the schools are failing their students.
>>
>
>1) that's very dependent on the school and
>2) very dependent on the students themselves and their own goals.
>
I've seen student shows where even third year illustration students
can't draw. I guess you imagine that the teachers have no part in
this.
> But in either case, what you acquire during that
>period, and what you accomplish with it after, are entirely your
>responsibility. If you aren't ready to take it on, stay in high school.
>
You can't acquire much of anything from teachers who don't know their
craft.
Noumenon
If professors themselves (like M.D.Gottsegen) complain about _art
education_ having degraded to quite deplorable condition and dismal
state, what there is to say about many young (daft & quite silly)
students who don't even seem to understand that they, in fact, are not
obtaining any useful education or receiving adequate training in those
"art" colleges (or departments) - for the most part?
Computers and technologies have nothing to do with teaching students
some basic skills, theory and knowledge of creating imagery. Otherwise
all art eduction soon witll be replaced by explaining how to open
libraries in
3D Maya, or memorising hotkeys in Photoshop.
One doesn't need to languish in some colledge for that.
Mr Clarke
Changes in global society may have detracted from the impact that artists
used to portray.
Many Graduates again this year will be outcast into societies that have
become hardened
by the wealth of artifacts almost immediately to hand - without background
appreciation.
Art School is where people go to learn the background appreciation and
techniques, whereas
the general population are oblivious to them. Another peice of art is just
another peice of art
to most people these days.
No matter how effective the Art School is in training, the artist could
still go unnoticed as a
professional today - to most people. Some may well do better for themselves
by following
a 19th Century curricullum!
The Schools may not be to blame (in short).
I followed a curricullum of 50/50 Theory/Practice for 4 years, but when
you attempt to apply
convoluted theories to something that looks as though a four year old
executed, it just doesn`t
work for most people (does it). The product has to have the corporate sense
to it!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
"Andrew D" <an...@elsewhere.com> wrote in message
news:andyd-18050...@dip-220-235-43-88.wa.westnet.com.au...
Al B. Traus
>what you acquire during that
>period, and what you accomplish with it after, are entirely your
>responsibility. If you aren't ready to take it on, stay in high school.
Bravo, ole, and three cheers!
The unfortunate fact, at least in the USA, is that
most students entering college or university feel
it the responsibility of the professors to "teach
them" - and end up like Mani, frustrated that they
weren't "taught." One's degree is only worth as
much as one puts into LEARNING while being exposed
to the opportunity for doing so.
Effort in = education received!
Andrew D
<caldwell...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrew D wrote:
> > How good a job they've done can only be assessed by considering the
> > success of the graduates. Do most, some or very few end up earning
> their
> > living from art? According to recent posts, it appears very few do.
> If
> > this is the case, then the schools are failing their students.
> >
>
> 1) that's very dependent on the school and
> 2) very dependent on the students themselves and their own goals.
>
> w/r to 2) how many philosophy grads become philosophers?
How many people at all do so? Plenty of people make a living from art, the
question is what proportion of them studied it fulltime, recently, at
university?
--
Andy D.
Andrew D
Clarke" <ne...@ashley-clarke.com> wrote:
> I followed a curricullum of 50/50 Theory/Practice for 4 years, but when
> you attempt to apply
> convoluted theories to something that looks as though a four year old
> executed, it just doesn`t work for most people (does it).
Not when the conclusions drawn from those convoluted theories differ for
each person apllying them and especially where they don't necessarily
match with the intent of the artist in the first place.
--
Andy D.
Al B. Traus
says...
>I cut this from the above site:
>"and a new informational literacy will be needed, with an
>emphasis on judgment, synthesis, clear thinking, and what
>author Robert McHenry calls a "genial skepticism" about
>the veracity and quality of the information a mouse-click away."
I don't think it takes long for someone
searching for 'authenticity' on the web
to learn that you don't find it on someone's
"blog" site, or even on sites devoted to
someone's particular area of interest. As
entertainment, using chat rooms and forums
can be useful if you trust the person
providing the information you seek.
OTOH, the vast data base provided by various
institutional web sites is a blessing for
those without other means of doing research.
Or simply for those of us who wouldn't otherwise
bother tripping to the library, the city hall,
the state capital, or wherever else the information
might traditionally come from.
Noumenon
> BTW - if you go look at the ARC website for the article, take a look at
> the pictures that accompany the text. I assume that these are the sorts
> of paintings ARC would like to see the world producing
Eh-h... but ARC web-site seems to contain much more than only those
typical salon-type tedious Neo-Romantic scenes with lackadaisical
females.
> Almost invariably beautifully drawn & painted images of
> child-like women in submissive poses wearing goofy clothing.
Yet, child-like women are definitely ever popular object of admiration
(of all times, icons of mass tastes) and infinite attraction to the
masculine eye. No? (Even now. Set aside all those unsightly meaty lips
and silicon implants).
:)
Clothes can be viewed upon as exotic and eh-h... sexy. Or some worn
jeans and sweaty T-shirts are better?
:)
Noumenon
> The unfortunate fact, at least in the USA, is that
> most students entering college or university feel
> it the responsibility of the professors to "teach
> them"
Of course, they should teach. Or what else they are for? But of course,
only fools may expect to obtain knowledge just because they _paid_ for
college and attended some classes. Without student's own desire to
learn, the best classes/lectures given by best teachers would be quite
useless.
But if all that those professors would do is to point out and direct
students to Internet sites and other resources - I'd quit such college
the very next day.
> One's degree is only worth as much as one puts
> into LEARNING while being exposed
> to the opportunity for doing so.
Lucky those who have such opportunity. I know quite many professors who
know next to nothing. Instead of solid knowledge all they have are solid
looks (respectably-looking beards and tummies) and good connexions (to
keep their jobs and chiselling out grants for their insignificant
researches).
> Effort in = education received!
True.
However, without thorough guidance by QUALIFIED and KNOWLEDGEABLE
teachers, students' efforts will be unsystematic, chaotic and wasteful.
artangel
some basic skills, theory and knowledge of creating imagery.
Use of computers and technology ARE basic skills. Welcome to the 21st
century!
JPL
It wasn't my point, and you took this sentence out of context.
Gottsegen was writing more about artists, not designers.
And for an artist computer is NOT a basic skill.
But drawing (and painting) are.
As for computers, well. As I wrote: one does not need to sweat in
college for that, it's very simple tool to learn.
When it takes years to learn real drawing and painting (sculpting,
composition, real 3D modelling, thoroughly applied colour theory, and
well, some taste), and only few bloody days or few weeks to learn
graphic software on computers.
In many cases some colleges, while being unable to provide adequate
_basic_ training, lean heavily on computer-related stuff. As a result we
see all those lazy botchers and slobbery duffers happily tapping on
keyboards and generating ghastly lifeless and utterly tasteless
"illustrations" and such.
Sure, computers can enhance productivity and expedite certain processes,
but they can not replace proper training.
But people do replace, that is the problem. Availability of powerful
computers and easiness of using them somewhat ruin artistry in general,
zeal or even very desire of disoriented neophytes to master true skills.
Andrew Werby
"JPL" <aRte...@concentric.Net> wrote in message
news:427C5099...@concentric.Net...
>
>
> artangel wrote:
>
>>> Computers and technologies have nothing to do with teaching students
>>> some basic skills, theory and knowledge of creating imagery.
>
>> Use of computers and technology ARE basic skills. Welcome to the 21st
>> century!
>
>
> It wasn't my point, and you took this sentence out of context.
>
> Gottsegen was writing more about artists, not designers.
> And for an artist computer is NOT a basic skill.
> But drawing (and painting) are.
>
> As for computers, well. As I wrote: one does not need to sweat in
> college for that, it's very simple tool to learn.
[So is a paintbrush, but learning everything one can do with it can take
some time, instruction, and yes, perspiration.]
>
> When it takes years to learn real drawing and painting (sculpting,
> composition, real 3D modelling, thoroughly applied colour theory, and
> well, some taste), and only few bloody days or few weeks to learn
> graphic software on computers.
[Everything always looks easy from a distance; the closer you come to it the
more difficulties appear. Yes, you can learn something about some graphic
program in a "few bloody days", but mastery is another matter entirely.]
> In many cases some colleges, while being unable to provide adequate
> _basic_ training, lean heavily on computer-related stuff. As a result we
> see all those lazy botchers and slobbery duffers happily tapping on
> keyboards and generating ghastly lifeless and utterly tasteless
> "illustrations" and such.
[At least they aren't killing trees and inhaling toxic fumes while they're
at it...]
>
> Sure, computers can enhance productivity and expedite certain processes,
> but they can not replace proper training.
> But people do replace, that is the problem. Availability of powerful
> computers and easiness of using them somewhat ruin artistry in general,
> zeal or even very desire of disoriented neophytes to master true skills.
>
>
> --
> Weaving the Conundrum
> -=| NOUMENON |=-
[This is the cry of Luddites in every age. When printed books started to
replace hand-copied ones, I'm sure that scribes everywhere decried the
decline in handwriting skills this portended. With the advent of the sewing
machine, seamstresses must have sniffed - these ignorant fools don't know or
even care what a proper hem looks like! When pre-mixed oil colors became
available in the 19th century, suddenly every Tom, Dick and Harry could go
out into the countryside and paint. The Academy was aghast - what would
become of Art as they knew it?
Certainly, computers make easy some things that previously were quite
difficult. But if everybody has one, nobody's going to be impressed with
their simple tricks, or not for long, anyway. Better technology raises the
bar; so it still takes a lot of effort to do something extraordinary. Things
become possible that weren't before, and some of us, anyway, are more
excited by these new opportunities than worried about the decline of skills
that were more important in the past.]
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
artangel
Hereford
it
to mean, or whatever the picture's interpreter wants it to mean
regardless of what the painter intended"
Too much of generalizing in here. Only the intententions of the artist
counts...
It takes time to get to know the artist. He is the storyteller in the
first place.
hereford
Loon E. Toon
says...
>some of us, anyway, are more
>excited by these new opportunities than worried about the decline of skills
>that were more important in the past.]
Yeah...and to think I used to spend all that
time making my own arrowheads and tomahawks. Sheesh!
Noumenon
It wasn't my point, and you took this sentence out of context.
Gottsegen was writing more about artists, not designers. And for an
artist computer is NOT a basic skill. But drawing and painting are.
As for computers, well.
As I wrote: one does not need to sweat in college for that, it's very
simple tool to learn.
When it takes years to learn real drawing and painting (sculpting,
composition, real 3D modelling, thoroughly applied colour theory, and
well, some taste), and only few bloody days or few weeks to learn
graphic software on computers.
In many cases some colleges, while being unable to provide adequate
_basic_ training, lean heavily on computer-related stuff. As a result we
see all those lazy botchers and slobbery duffers happily tapping on
keyboards and generating ghastly lifeless and utterly tasteless
"illustrations" and such.
Sure, computers can enhance productivity and expedite certain processes,
but they can not replace proper training.
But people do replace, that is the problem. Availability of powerful
computers and easiness of using them somewhat ruin artistry in general,
enfeeble zeal or even very desire of disoriented neophytes to master
true skills.
Noumenon
artangel wrote:
pigsm...@hotmail.com
You have hit right on the nail. Better put... 20C Art has practically
nothing to do with art that preceeded it. In other words, what is call
"Art" today is not "Art" but rather Art-minus-minus.
PS: That is not to say that Art-- is an evolution of classical Art;
just like cancer is not a human evolution.