how commercially viable is a fine arts degree ?
gloria
I got a BA in Art with a minor in Education...then went on to get a
Master of Fine Arts in Painting. In terms of if an MFA is "commercially
viable"...I would say not really ,unless you want to take Education
classes and teach. If you want to teach at the University level you
won't need Education credits. Here in the USA you need Education courses
to teach in the public schools.
Personally for me, the MFA was useful because I had two more years to
paint full-time accompanied by a good education.
After I graduated, I taught in the public schools for awhile and then
based on a "fine art" portfolio I got my first job as a graphic
designer. I didn't know how to do anything--(hold a T-square even--there
were no computers in those days). I worked as a graphic designer for 10
years and because computers came into the forefront, I eventually left
graphic design to become a computer trainer. Now I am the Director of
Technology at an all girls high school. I teach all the wonderful
graphic applications including web page design. I have summers off to
pursue my painting, as well as many holidays during the year.
If you are interested in something "commercially viable", I would say
get into the computer design field, which includes graphic applications
for animation, 3-D, web page design, etc. Prepare yourself for a very
competeive market and do all you can to develop and succeed.
If painting and fine art is your passion, I would go for that. Only you
can decide what is more important to you--commercial/monetary success or
love for art and passion for one's expression. (Of course you will have
to prepareyourself to do something else for money)
I wish you the best.
Gloria Rabinowitz
http://www.akula.com/~gloria
__________________
Dear All
i am interested in doing a degree in fine arts but am holding back
because i
don't know how commercially viable something like that would be.... i
don't
want to be stuck with a useless degree....
so does any one know wot sort of professions a person with a fine arts
degree would be able to pursue ??? i am interested in graphic design.
i live in singapore where the arts are not really well established as we
are
basically an entreprenual society that is not yet able to open up to the
arts yet. so you understand my hesitance to take on this pursuit even
tho my
heart is very much into it ?
Amanda
Kay Kane
Amanda Koh wrote in message <7amugj$a6v$1...@newton.pacific.net.sg>...
>Dear All
>
>i am interested in doing a degree in fine arts but am holding back because
i
>don't know how commercially viable something like that would be.... i don't
>want to be stuck with a useless degree....
It's a useless degree in the traditional sense of graduating from college
and earning lots of money right away. You can be sensible and get something
that will guarantee an income or you can follow your heart. To be an artist
(earning a living), I would advise allocating 10 years of no profit, which
would mean being supported by parents, lovers, begging, whatever. It
depends on how important $$ is to you.
>
>so does any one know wot sort of professions a person with a fine arts
>degree would be able to pursue ??? i am interested in graphic design.
I know nothing about graphic design. I think Erik could advise you there.
I think graphic design is actually easier to actually make a living at. (Be
cautious, those of us with "fine arts" degrees don't actually consider
graphic design as fine arts).
>
>i live in singapore where the arts are not really well established as we
are
>basically an entreprenual society that is not yet able to open up to the
>arts yet. so you understand my hesitance to take on this pursuit even tho
my
>heart is very much into it ?
>
>Amanda
>
For graphic design, the net is an invaluable tool. You can probably make it
work. For fine arts, you would have to take trips to the USA, but it is
doable. Just remember, if you try and don't make it, what is the worse
thing that could happen? Will someone come and shoot you? Will you be
imprisoned? How much do you love it and how much does it mean to you? This
is a very personal decision for you to make based on your own knowledge of
your wants and needs as well as your abilities.
Kay Kane
JC
Web Page English: http://members.tripod.com/Jacques_Clark
E-Mail: chi...@videotron.ca
>
>i am interested in doing a degree in fine arts but am holding back because i
>don't know how commercially viable something like that would be.... i don't
>want to be stuck with a useless degree....
>
>degree would be able to pursue ??? i am interested in graphic design.
>
Amanda Koh
Jennifer Eiserman
profitable) work opportunities: You could get contract work with design &
illustration companies; you could work for a theater company in prop & set
design; you could get sessional jobs in art education at either a University
(need a graduate degree for this) or at an art college (an undergraduate degree
and experience might be sufficient here); you could get work in an art museum as
a preparator; you could design display windows for store fronts; you could work
as a design consultant for companies and people that want to create web sites;
or, you could work for yourself and make art while doing whatever you need to do
(serve coffee, pump gas, & so on...) to make money. Getting a Fine Arts
education is not a "safe bet" if you're looking to make money until you're ready
for retirement, but it IS a pretty interesting way to spend a lifetime.
Cheers, Terry
-N.
Examiner, that discusses some of the mythology and misinformation related
to art degrees, particularly MFA's.
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
Blue Moon
>You can probably make it
>work. For fine arts, you would have to take trips to the USA
WHY? What do you think the rest of the world does for
art education? I doubt that those in the 'rest of the
world' would agree with you. FINE ART is in fine places
like Paris, Rome, Florence, Amsterdam, London, Seoul, etc
where it is closer to 'home' than it ever is going to
be in the USA.
Blue Moon
>i am interested in doing a degree in fine arts but am holding back because i
>don't know how commercially viable something like that would be.... i don't
>want to be stuck with a useless degree....
One problem with ANY degree is the reason for getting an
education in the first place. If you see it going in as
only a way of guaranteeing a good living when you get out
you are in for a huge disappointment. Like everything in
life, you will get out what you are willing to put in.
If you see art education as just that -- another way to
obtain an education in the field you desire to work a
lifetime in, then go for it.
If you are looking for guarantees for a lifetime of safety,
of job security, then for now get into something high-tech.
Or into investment banking/brokeraging, engineering etc.
Kay Kane
Blue Moon wrote in message <36d03...@oracle.zianet.com>...
True, Blue,
But, I was talking about an option of being a "fine artist" in which I means
a "maker of art" in which case it would make no sense for her to show in
Singapore and if she is going to travel, the U.S. is the current "center" of
the art world!
Kay
>
DFRussell
Well! marilyn isn't going to like that comment. No sir! Won't do!
BTW, we're not being very multicultural here, are we? Please subtract
14 PC points from your score card and replay hole 2.
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
Kay Kane
DFRussell wrote in message <7aq4bn$p16$1...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>...
Guilty, as charged! But, I'm speaking about myself, too. If you dream, why
dream small? I've had 2 group shows in NYC and the rest have been
elsewhere. There are regional artists who do very well, but, according to
your dream, if one aspires a trip to the "top", one MUST go to NYC, not to
live, but at least to make trips to SHOW! Please give me an example to
prove me wrong - I really want to be wrong!
Kay Kane
Marilyn
I agree totally with Kay Kane, NYC & LA are the two art meccas.
I usually try to remind people that there is life outside the
USA, but I don't deny the reality of what constitutes today's
art centres.
Amanda Koh
not that i'm looking to make big bucks .... i feel that a profession has to
be something that can sustain you financially and at the same time, be more
than a money maker... there must be satisfaction and a inner drive to
succeed in the field to work for the better of the arts, and not to make
profit for oneself....
my situation in singapore is somewhat different tho.... anyone who
endeavours into the arts scene is a pioneer and it is a daunting task... the
fine arts degree if anything, would be a passport... as singaporeans credit
people based on their qualifications, it would be the passport to give me
some sort of credit... so that people know that i am not just an amateur but
someone with knowledge in the field
i'm considering going into commercial arts, particularly graphic design.....
there's always work in advertising agencies and design companies.....
there's always employment in communications and education..... but is that
it ??? don't talk to me about portfolios .... the only portfolios that
singaporean employers want to see would be SALES PORTFOLIOS.... how
aesthetic a design concept may be doesn't matter to them... all that matters
would be how well something sells.... alas... the plight of a singaporean
artist !
i'm thinking of basing myself overseas if i do choose to go into fine
arts..... even if i do decide to return home after that i will be more
respected for the simple reason that i worked overseas..... its really quite
sick isn't it and i'm really hoping that locals will open themselves up more
to the arts..... there are many people with the mindset that arts =
entertainment.... a logic that has no logic if you ask me.... many people
here think that arts are the alternative to intellectualism, and that a
person 'needn't have brains to do art'..... part of the reason why i want to
go into the fine arts would be to prove these people wrong.....
so u see my situation ???
Amanda
There are 3 types of people in the world,
those who make things happen,
those who watch things happen
and those who wonder what just happened.
this is an e-mail from Amanda
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"Amanda Koh" <a...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> Dear All
>
> i am interested in doing a degree in fine arts but am holding back because i
> don't know how commercially viable something like that would be.... i don't
> want to be stuck with a useless degree....
>
> degree would be able to pursue ??? i am interested in graphic design.
>
> i live in singapore where the arts are not really well established as we are
> basically an entreprenual society that is not yet able to open up to the
> arts yet. so you understand my hesitance to take on this pursuit even tho my
> heart is very much into it ?
>
> Amanda
>
I'm surprised what you say about Singapore and the arts. I've seen some of
the best web page design come from there -- there's some really great talent.
I've been a graphic artist for several years, and also a 'fine artist', and
to be sure the graphic arts part is a compromise in order to earn a living.
I agree with what Kay says in this thread about the difference, but I may
disagree with her about the actual 'degree' of difference. When you look
historically at such institutions as the Bauhaus you see the influence on
subsequent graphic and industrial design as well as fine art. With
instructors such as Kandinsky, Klee, and (who were the others?) how could it
be otherwise? (It was a short step from DaDa to Bauhaus, I think).
But on the strength of what your expressed interests are, I would say the
pursuit of an MFA degree would not be best for you. I would look into the
various design schools such as Otis, Art Center...there are many all over,
and I am unfamiliar with the design schools abroad (outside the US). I think
you should pursue a design degree, as it will make you much more employable
in many of the top knotch positions that are available internationally.
Additionally, most design curricula includes much of the course work you
would enjoy in a fine art context, such as drawing, painting -- only there
are design skill required that are not offered in an MFA program, at least
traditionally. And yes, computer skill is the heart of modern graphic
design.
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
emat...@tomatoweb.com
I saw an absolutely hilarious piece in a show at the Gorman Museum, UC Davis,
by Ric Glazier Dene. I can't remember the title, but it was a package with
an exchange of letters between the artist and Castelli's on the subject of
the gallery's rejection of Ric's submissions. I cracked up, really!
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
> Blue Moon wrote in message <36d03...@oracle.zianet.com>...
> >In article <%mJz2.1310$yv3...@news2.giganews.com>, scarl...@theriver.com
> says...
> >
> >>You can probably make it
> >>work. For fine arts, you would have to take trips to the USA
> >
> >WHY? What do you think the rest of the world does for
> >art education? I doubt that those in the 'rest of the
> >world' would agree with you. FINE ART is in fine places
> >like Paris, Rome, Florence, Amsterdam, London, Seoul, etc
> >where it is closer to 'home' than it ever is going to
> >be in the USA.
>
> True, Blue,
> But, I was talking about an option of being a "fine artist" in which I means
> a "maker of art" in which case it would make no sense for her to show in
> Singapore and if she is going to travel, the U.S. is the current "center" of
> the art world!
> >
Supportive documentation: Guilbaut, Serge. How New York stole the idea of
modern art : abstract expressionism, freedom, and the cold war/, Serge
Guilbaut ; translated by Arthur Goldhammer. Chicago : University of Chicago
Press, 1983. x, 277 p., [16] p. of plates : ill.
>
I'll bill you at the end of the month, Kay.
Kay Kane
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7aqvf7$ckg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
College of Norwich University offer MFA degrees in computer art, as do
others.
Kay
Kay Kane
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7aqu5n$bmf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
The check is in the mail and I'll call you in the morning.
Kay
mike...@my-dejanews.com
computer programming and nursing.
Regarding a fine arts degree; as far as I know, there aren't even any jobs for
"fine artists". There are jobs in teaching... at the college level, teaching
jobs are notoriously impossible to obtain. There are so many PhDs who are
woefully underemployed; it's very sad.
I don't even see how a degree would help your career as an artist; I don't
think anyone cares what kind of education an artist has when evaluating
his/her work. None of the great artists had MFAs.
Maybe you don't really need to go to college at all?
In the U.S., there are a pretty large number of jobs for people to do
commercial design work, mostly computerized; these jobs don't pay a whole lot
of money, and they don't require a college degree. People generally go to
vocational schools in order to get into that field.
Blue Moon
>I agree totally with Kay Kane, NYC & LA are the two art meccas.
>I usually try to remind people that there is life outside the
>USA, but I don't deny the reality of what constitutes today's
>art centres.
Perhaps you've forgotten there is a THIRD coast
in the USA. Houston folks do not take
kindly to being left out of the Art Mecca listings.
Nor do those living in DALLAS/Ft WORTH, and NAWLINS, and
SEATTLE, and SAN FRANCISCO, and on and on. Each of these
has a very viable and strong art market. There is no
denying the power of NYC but to put LA in the same
league is as much of a stretch as excluding the cities
I've named.
Blue Moon
>
>why i asked the question....
It certainly sounds as if you had the answer to your
question all along and were only wanting some
confirmation. And I can only repeat what I advised
earlier -- GO FOR IT if that is what you believe will
give you legitimacy and success. You have to believe
in yourself FIRST and serve that belief fully.
To thine own self be true!
Marilyn
Mentioning NYC & LA as _international_ centres means I was
not limiting them to the USA.
And yes I put LA in the same league as NYC from what I have
observed and studied.
If you are going to list North American cities with viable art markets,
art scenes, there are Montreal & Toronto but then you may have
forgotten that there is life beyond the 49th parallel.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In the United States, the only degrees with any truly practical use would be
> computer programming and nursing.
>
> Regarding a fine arts degree; as far as I know, there aren't even any jobs for
> "fine artists". There are jobs in teaching... at the college level, teaching
> jobs are notoriously impossible to obtain. There are so many PhDs who are
> woefully underemployed; it's very sad.
Yet look at the federal labor codes under: artist-painter; artist-sculptor;
artist-printmaker. There must be some jobs out there. (as a matter of fact
there are, but on a practical basis I think you're correct).
>
> I don't even see how a degree would help your career as an artist; I don't
> think anyone cares what kind of education an artist has when evaluating
> his/her work. None of the great artists had MFAs.
Untrue. Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'great artists.' Put
the point is that besides a college being a ticket to better pay and
conditions, you actually learn something (even though at graduation you may
not feel like you learned anything -- it kind of comes to you later that you
did). I have taught art classes, and the first thing you have to ask
yourself when developing a curriculum is 'what is teachable.' There's
actually a great deal that is teachable.
>
> Maybe you don't really need to go to college at all?
>
> In the U.S., there are a pretty large number of jobs for people to do
> commercial design work, mostly computerized; these jobs don't pay a whole lot
> of money, and they don't require a college degree. People generally go to
> vocational schools in order to get into that field.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but I question it.
The average design-fee rate in the US ranges around $65 per hour, which isn't
too shabby. Many graphic artists who have established a reputation in a
particular market niche charge much more, and their clients are happy.
Additionally, most design firms require degrees to even consider an applicant
-- along with a strong portfolio. Just look at the web sites of design
firms, multimedia producers, software producers etc. and you will see the
degree requirement on their job announcements. What may be confusing is that
now, with the interent, many individuals who have no formal training are able
to hang out their 'designer' shingle, and even find work. This doesn't mean
they could get through the first heat of a competitive hiring situation. In
that situations degrees, even voc ed degrees, are imperative.
Erik Mattila.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
I agree, especially Toronto, as far as I have heard. Seems to attract a lot
of artists.
I was interested that Blue and Kay mentioned LA. When Kenneth Baker left the
New York Times to write for the San Francisco Chronicle (circa 1986) one of
his first columns was his assesment of the 'West Coast Art Scene.' (sorry,
Mayilyn, I know Baker didn't include Vancouver in that, but he didn't include
Portland, Seattle, or Anchorage either). Anyway, he determined that there
was better art in San Francisco, but LA won hands down insofar as community
support for the arts is concerned.
Some of you out there may not know this, but there is a traditional rivalry
between these two cities, going on for many years. The SF attitude about LA
is that is is plastic, superficial, commercial etc. The LA attitude is that
SF is snobbish, pseudo-intellectual, pretentious and so on. Baker's finding
seemed to have undermined some of the biases that may have existed in this
discourse. So it's really interesting to me (a SF native) that LA is
considered an Art Mecca. Kool.
Erik Mattila
Marilyn
Are you still in San Francisco? Isn't it so very brown there. (grin)
We are so lush & green up here.
LA was known as a forbidden valley before European contact, because
there was a haze in the valley even then. Then those hard headed
Catholics came along thought it was angels.
Maybe that forbidden valley mystique still exists.
As for an arts degree being commercially viable,
that relegates art education to being utilitarian.
It should be more than that as incentive, like
passion, like having something to say in the most
intensive way, like being willing to make sacrifices
for long term goals that only you can visualize.
Kay Kane
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7asnhj$v21$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
I didn't mention L.A. I would choose Chicago or Santa Fe as #2 & #3.
Kay
Plus, I said
'take trips" Onr really needs to go to NYC.. All others mentioned are kind
of
'regional". OK, if that is what you are going for. Much easier to make it
locally.
kay KA
Kay Kane
Marilyn wrote in message <36D209...@bc.ca>...
>We are so lush & green up here.
>
>LA was known as a forbidden valley before European contact, because
>there was a haze in the valley even then. Then those hard headed
>Catholics came along thought it was angels.
>
>Maybe that forbidden valley mystique still exists.
>
>As for an arts degree being commercially viable,
>that relegates art education to being utilitarian.
>It should be more than that as incentive, like
>passion, like having something to say in the most
>intensive way, like being willing to make sacrifices
>for long term goals that only you can visualize.
I think an art degree today shows CREDIBILITY which is very important. One
needs to be taken seriously in this uphill battle. "Self-taught", today, is
almost a derrogitory label. Making it big directly after school? Keith
Haring comes to mind (tho I'm no fan). MFA is a relatively new degree
requirement... Not necessary in the past, v.i.p. today and extremely hard to
even get into an MFA program. I've heard that there is now a PhD in studio
art/fine art being taught at University of Iowa; if this is true, in the
future, an MFA won't be enough.
Kai Kane
mike...@my-dejanews.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> Yet look at the federal labor codes under: artist-painter; artist-sculptor;
> artist-printmaker. There must be some jobs out there. (as a matter of fact
> there are, but on a practical basis I think you're correct).
I think we both agree that no one is going to hop out of school with and MFA
and get snapped up as an "artist-painter".
> > I don't even see how a degree would help your career as an artist; I don't
> > think anyone cares what kind of education an artist has when evaluating
> > his/her work. None of the great artists had MFAs.
>
> Untrue. Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'great artists.' Put
> the point is that besides a college being a ticket to better pay and
> conditions, you actually learn something (even though at graduation you may
> not feel like you learned anything -- it kind of comes to you later that you
> did). I have taught art classes, and the first thing you have to ask
> yourself when developing a curriculum is 'what is teachable.' There's
> actually a great deal that is teachable.
I mean that Rembrandt, Monet, Titian, and those guys didn't have MFAs.
I didn't say that there isn't anything teachable with respect to art. But
there's a difference between taking classes and getting a degree. We were
talking about getting a degree.
If you make a living selling your paintings, then I'd be genuinely interesting
in hearing about how you became good enough at painting to sell them. The
first time you picked up a paintbrush, were you able to paint something you'd
want to hang on the wall? Or did it take years of practice?
I took a painting class, and what impressed me is that the teacher was a
professional artist who made a living selling his paintings. I have no idea
whether or not he has an MFA, and in fact I could care the less because it
doesn't matter.
> > Maybe you don't really need to go to college at all?
> >
> > In the U.S., there are a pretty large number of jobs for people to do
> > commercial design work, mostly computerized; these jobs don't pay a whole
lot
> > of money, and they don't require a college degree. People generally go to
> > vocational schools in order to get into that field.
>
> I don't know where you're getting your information from, but I question it.
> The average design-fee rate in the US ranges around $65 per hour, which isn't
> too shabby. Many graphic artists who have established a reputation in a
> particular market niche charge much more, and their clients are happy.
> Additionally, most design firms require degrees to even consider an applicant
> -- along with a strong portfolio. Just look at the web sites of design
> firms, multimedia producers, software producers etc. and you will see the
> degree requirement on their job announcements. What may be confusing
is that
> now, with the interent, many individuals who have no formal training are able
> to hang out their 'designer' shingle, and even find work. This doesn't mean
> they could get through the first heat of a competitive hiring situation. In
> that situations degrees, even voc ed degrees, are imperative.
We were talking about fine art before, but now we are talking about commercial
art. I think I said that there are jobs in commercial art, and people have to
go to vocational schools to qualify for those jobs. They don't teach
commercial art at real colleges, like Harvard, they only teach fine arts at
Harvard.
As far as I know, there are more people graduating from these commercial art
schools than there are jobs available. I've never heard of any shortage. You
hear all the time about how there aren't enough computer programmers.
Some of the commercial art jobs are computer intensive; such jobs are more
computer jobs than they are art jobs, so they pay more and there's probably
more demand.
I think there's a great deal of difference between painting, and working all
day in front of a computer. I really think they are two entirely different
jobs.
Regards,
Michael
-N.
> I agree totally with Kay Kane, NYC & LA are the two art meccas.
> I usually try to remind people that there is life outside the
> USA, but I don't deny the reality of what constitutes today's
> art centres.
I'd like to offer my two cents here.
First, I'll qualify my experience by stating that I am writing from NYC,
for whatever that means.
As far as MAKING art in Singapore and BEING an artist, there are no
geographic limitations...the idea of art capitals and centers is complete
nonsense, USA and NYC inclusive. Where ever you are, that is the center of
the universe. Making art means making sense of the situations your life
takes you into , being responsive to the culture you have chosen to breed
yourself in. You don't need fancy equipment, you don't need fancy clothes,
you don't need the US of A, you don't need a high income, you don't need
fame and fortune. You do need imagination. NYC and LA hold absolutely no
monopoly on that. Any pundit that tells you otherwise is full of it. Think
of the last time you expereinced art that was so vital that it fully
transformed your life...those art expereinces are as rare, I assure you ,
in NYC as they are in Singapore. Additionally, you may find that what you
learn in a BFA or MFA program has little application to what you wish to
express, whatever else they are, they are systems of indoctrination...and
represent only one method of developing as an artist. Additionally, in the
USA at least, there is virtually no opportunity for the artist as a
profressional, whether teacher or professional full-time artist. Virtually
none. I recently read a good article refering to MFA degrees as a form of
'pyramid business scheme', the program of the MFA degree for the fine
artist was created to fill a need to produce teachers (not artists), to
teach the influx of new students on the GI bill. It works only if new
students (freshmen) are brought into the system exponentially to create
new teaching jobs for all the MFA deegree holders. As anyone can now see,
the system has completely collasped. The article stated how abysmally low
the job placement rate was for MFA's in their chosen field, about the
worst of any field of study: so frighteningly poor was the career
placement rates among MFA's, that the analogy was that if the medical
schools performed as poorly in placing their graduates in the medical
profession as the MFA programs did in placing their grads in the arts,
there would be an urgent and comprehensive Senate investigation. If you
wish to make money directly from your MFA degree in the fine arts...forget
it. The system has completely crashed. Conversly, if you want time to
paint and think an MFA will by you that, your $50,000 can be MUCH better
spent in other ways [hell, you could probably rent a studio, stock it with
supplies, bribe an OK gallery annually for a solo show, all for five years
runnning with the 50G]. You wont have the piece of paper, but that paper
doesn't make you an artist, nor will it get you work in the fine arts.
Consider that you don't need to be talked about, reproduced, and collected
to be an artist. I am of the opinion that the idea of the private artist
is as valid or more so than the public artist. You will know when you are
an artist, and you will know what you need to be doing. No amount of
school will ever teach you that. An BFA, MFA, or PHD degree does not make
you an artist. My personal observations are that most graduates from fine
art programs do not continue to pursue or produce art...the obstacles are
too great, and the rewards in other areas of life are too tempting, most
are weeded out along the way to greatfully go on to more productive and
fulfilling life pathes.
Conversly, the commercial arts can be as creative as the fine arts. It is
just pretension and elitism on the part of the fine artists who insist on
seeing it otherwise. Visual expression can occur in graphic and commercial
arts, indeed, I would say the best minds these days are not going into
traditional media and programs such as painting and fine art, but rather
into new media, animation, computers, film. Money and opportunity are in
these latter fields. The departments in universities get more funding than
the traditional fine arts departments. An example. I competed for and won
an art fellowship based on slides of my art submitted...the award included
a large studio for one year, monthly stipend, an established artist kept
on retainer as a career/professional consultant/mentor, and culminating in
an exhibition w/catalogue. I received news about a month ago that the
fellowship program (by now at least a decade old) was being axed due to
funding. I just received a call today by the director and was offered a
'virtual fellowship'. They are transforming their traditional media
physical art facilities into 'cyber studios' with high tech computer
equipment. The fellowship will now consist of the monthly stipend, access
to the computer lab equipment, a technical consultant/mentor, and a
web-exhibit of the project at the end of the now 10 month fellowship. I
asked if I could paint in the space and the director said NO. My options
are simply to take it or leave it. Money is going into technology, and
into arts based on the new technology, because that is where a great deal
of money, public exposure, and funding is. It is also eating into and
eroding the financial base of the traditional arts, redirecting funds to
other media. It is 'hot'. The SOHO Guggenheim Museum in NYC, for instance,
is generously funded by Duetch Telecom. The agendas of the museum is
shaped by the nature of the funding. Frankly, having worked with the
Macintosh seriously for 8 years, there is no doubt as to which I would
choose, computers or painting...painting any day of the week. Although I
used to harbor dreams of having technological access to try some
interesting projects with digital tech, I have never had the resources to
realise them (ironically, now I may). However, the generation now forming
will undoubtedly do intersting things with computers, new technology, and
the fileds in which they are used...the future looks bright there.
Brighter than the future of painting as far as a culturally significant
activity (based on the numbers).
Traditional painting, sculpture, etc, hold no monoploy on imagination and
expression. You are also more likely to make a comfortable living in the
commercial realm. Besides, the fine arts is also a commercial realm, like
it or not, it involves salespeople, collectors, etc. As for entertainment,
it is difficult if not impossible to seperate art form entertainment, that
issue was settled in the eighties. Is the movie Saving Private Ryan art or
entertainment or both?
Be forewarned however: making money, does not necessarily equate to being
an artist (it would depend on how you define an artist...Andy Warhol
thought "Business Art" was the highest form of art). One may have to be
prepared for many obstacles in living as an artist, including being
frustrated, misunderstood, and poor. But again, imagination can overcome
these obstacles and turn them into doors of opportunity, YMMV.
Good luck with your future whatever you decide upon.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
>
> Are you still in San Francisco? Isn't it so very brown there. (grin)
> We are so lush & green up here.
Hell no, I'm in a worse than brown zone -- the desert of So Cal just about
twenty minutes north of Mexicali. (actually, the desert is quite beautiful,
except culturally). But Crensencia and I are paying our dues, displaced down
here caring for her folks, who are invalid. (Actually her dad passed away; in
November, so now we are just taking care of Mom.) I am a displaced person
eager to go back to the brown zone.
But don't tell me about green. As far as I am concerned you live in one of
the seven wonders of the natual wold. I envy you.
Erik
Amanda Koh
thank you for your reply.... here's to answer your question.....
>In the United States, the only degrees with any truly practical use would
be
>computer programming and nursing.
and in singapore, only degrees concerning business and marketing..... the IT
industry is dominated by people with degrees in everything else except IT
(like philosophy) and there are many non-graduates there.....
>Regarding a fine arts degree; as far as I know, there aren't even any jobs
for
>"fine artists". There are jobs in teaching... at the college level,
teaching
>jobs are notoriously impossible to obtain. There are so many PhDs who are
>woefully underemployed; it's very sad.
that's true... that's why i'm posing the question to the newsgroup. i
believe that there will always be jobs in your line of interest if you are
keen enough and innovative enough.... that's why i'm looking to see what can
come of this discussion, and to perhaps bring to the open the various lines
that fine arts people or design people can go into and still enjoy the arts
in their professions......
>I don't even see how a degree would help your career as an artist; I don't
>think anyone cares what kind of education an artist has when evaluating
>his/her work. None of the great artists had MFAs.
well.... its VERY DIFFERENT in singapore.....
qualifications speak more than actual skill...... probably because employers
and society here in general are not people people able to see ability beyond
what is written on paper... they take the easy way out.... that's why
qualifications become important, even to the people who think that it
shouldn't matter......
altho i'm not looking for financial success thro the arts, i need to be able
to support myself well enough tho i'm not looking to make thousands of
dollars a month.... no one plans to become a great artist anyway.... if it
happens, it happens..... that's why i'm considering the commercial arts.
>Maybe you don't really need to go to college at all?
not true in my context.... in singapore, people judge your character based
on your occupation, and your occupation is determined by your
qualifications. if i were to go into the arts with a degree, i would be
considered innovative and creative..... if i didn't have a degree, i would
be considered an idiot who couldn't do anything else. the arts in singapore
are considered low brow entertainment, a little higher than a trip to the
movies or to the shopping centre for that matter.....
a degree therefore is important...... especially an overseas degree... it
makes people sit up and take notice of you, and that's how to forage into
the arts here...... at the moment, it is dominated by graduates from design
schools and fine arts institutions, and the only way to enter would be to be
one yourself.....
>In the U.S., there are a pretty large number of jobs for people to do
>commercial design work, mostly computerized; these jobs don't pay a whole
lot
>of money, and they don't require a college degree. People generally go to
>vocational schools in order to get into that field.
well.... locally, diplomas in commercial design are offered in singapore,
and these diploma holders are often encouraged to furthur their diploma
overseas to obtain a degree.... for me, i've done the GCE A Levels with art
as one of the 3 subjects (the others being english literature and history),
it is however, an academic qualification as opposed to the professional
qualifications that they have..... and i'll be able to use that to go to a
university to follow up with a degree.... fine arts degrees are not
available locally..... i am on the other hand considering theatre studies
and music as the alternative.....
there's always the education line to go into....... singapore badly needs
art teachers......
i'm seeing how it goes.... results will be out in 2 weeks.... and i'll have
to make my decision then.....
Amanda
MikeGeezer
>In article <36D19C...@bc.ca>,
> Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
>> Blue Moon wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <36D0E5...@bc.ca>, m...@bc.ca says...
>> >
>> > >I agree totally with Kay Kane, NYC & LA are the two art meccas.
>> > >I usually try to remind people that there is life outside the
>> > >USA, but I don't deny the reality of what constitutes today's
>> > >art centres.
>> >
I thought Kenneth Baker's previous job was at The Boston Phoenix (an
alternative paper) .
>Some of you out there may not know this, but there is a traditional rivalry
>between these two cities, going on for many years. The SF attitude about LA
>is that is is plastic, superficial, commercial etc. The LA attitude is that
>SF is snobbish, pseudo-intellectual, pretentious and so on. Baker's finding
>seemed to have undermined some of the biases that may have existed in this
>discourse. So it's really interesting to me (a SF native) that LA is
>considered an Art Mecca. Kool.
>Erik Mattila
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Benny Shaboy
editor
studioNOTES
http://webgalleries.com/studionotes
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I think we both agree that no one is going to hop out of school with and MFA
> and get snapped up as an "artist-painter".
Yes, I think we agree on these points.
>
> > > I don't even see how a degree would help your career as an artist; I don't
> > > think anyone cares what kind of education an artist has when evaluating
> > > his/her work. None of the great artists had MFAs.
> I mean that Rembrandt, Monet, Titian, and those guys didn't have MFAs.
Of course. The idea of an MFA didn't exist in the time of these artists.
But I would argue that an equivalent concept existed. All these artists
studied art, in one way or another--notably with early endenturement into the
apothicaries guild and later into the studio of a master. (at least in
Titian's case) And these programmes were typically more rigourous that most
contemporary MFA programs. You must understand, Art = Intelligence, in some
way or another.
>
> I didn't say that there isn't anything teachable with respect to art. But
> there's a difference between taking classes and getting a degree. We were
> talking about getting a degree.
True, you didn't focus on that idea, but you implied that art could be self-
taught, which I took exception to. I think you were focusing on the idea of
the 'degree' as something that was independant of the curriculum. But there
is a very strong validity to your focus, in my opinion, since often just the
fact of having a degree is a form of currency, regardless if there was any
learning behind the degree.
>
> If you make a living selling your paintings, then I'd be genuinely interesting
> in hearing about how you became good enough at painting to sell them. The
> first time you picked up a paintbrush, were you able to paint something you'd
> want to hang on the wall? Or did it take years of practice?
I came to this decision, Michael, about earning a living as a painter of fine
art. At some point in my career I realized that I could do it, but it
appeared to me that there were better 'deals' elswhere. Artists really get a
pretty bitter deal -- it's an industry that is geared on exploiting the
individuals hunger for superstardome, not too different than the prospects of
a black athelete ever making it to the Celtics or the Lakers. Anyway,
because I have to pay my dues, I made the decision to suppress my 'will to
art' and 'prostitute' my talents to earn a living in the graphic arts
industry. At my age I have few misgivings about that decision. I still like
to paint, and if I paint in a context that doesn't require me to conform to a
gallery standard, so much the better. It's a wonderful freedom that I didn't
experience when I was trying to paint for a fine arts market. But I want to
emphasize that I have a great respect for those who have decided to endure
the brutality of the art market and push themselves in that direction. I
don't hold myself up as an example of any sort of 'correct' response to that
reality--just somebody that decided that it wasn't worth it for a number of
personal reasons.
I also compromised by agreeing to become an art teacher. It was a wonderful
endeavor, but it was something quite distinct from make art as a profession.
I opted for commercial art because it is more lucrative than teaching.
>
> I took a painting class, and what impressed me is that the teacher was a
> professional artist who made a living selling his paintings. I have no idea
> whether or not he has an MFA, and in fact I could care the less because it
> doesn't matter.
I studied art with megaartists like Wayne Thiebaud, who sells in six figures
regularly. I asked Wayne one day why he still worked as a fine art
instructor, which payed about .001$ percent of what he was earning at a
gallery, His answer was that the art market was capricious and unreliable,
and he elected to teach for the simple reason of financial security, with
vacation pay, unemployment insurance, retirement etc.
>
> We were talking about fine art before, but now we are talking about commercial
> art. I think I said that there are jobs in commercial art, and people have to
> go to vocational schools to qualify for those jobs. They don't teach
> commercial art at real colleges, like Harvard, they only teach fine arts at
> Harvard.
No, you are incorrect. Many major Universities, like Harvard, have Industrial
Design, Advertising Design, Computer Graphics, and etc. curriculum offered to
their students. UC San Diego, for example, offers a MFA degree in computer
graphics. You have to understand how the University system works--surveys are
made in the community to determine what skills are going to be required five
years down the line, in order to produce the talent necessary to fill these
employment skill slots. If the studies determine that x number of qualified
applicants are required in year 5 of the study, the University will develop
curriculum to fill this need. This is the only way that the public expense of
supporting education is workable. Take a look at a web site I design and
maintain in this regard:
http://www.ccst.ucr.edu
>
> As far as I know, there are more people graduating from these commercial art
> schools than there are jobs available. I've never heard of any shortage. You
> hear all the time about how there aren't enough computer programmers.
Well, I talked to a rep from Macromedia a couple of years ago that swore that
anybody that was good at 3D graphics could write his own employment ticket.
If you have ever been involved in the intracacies of the computer gaming
industry, for example, you will quickly become aware of the market demand of
a mountain of computer art necessary to support this high-income industry. I
mean there are thousands of worker hours invested into the production of a
game like "Riven" or "Tomb Raider" or "Pac Man". I garantee you that there's
a significant demand for labor in these industires, and that demand is
increasing in advance of the supply. (how else can a hick like me get more
contracts than I can handle???)
>
> Some of the commercial art jobs are computer intensive; such jobs are more
> computer jobs than they are art jobs, so they pay more and there's probably
> more demand.
>
There's no reasonable distinction between 'computer jobs" and 'art jobs'
today, Michael. Look, I'm 56 years old and I've worked in advertising design
since the days of rubber cement and exacto knives. Now I do everything
sitting at my computer in my underwear that I used to do by commuting,
working at an office, sending specs out to a type setter, and so on. I have
a few friends who were terrific designers by the standards of the old school,
but couldn't make the transition to the computer, and they just ended up
pumping gas and washing windows. That's the harsh reality. There are no
more 'art jobs' if I understand you correctly.
> I think there's a great deal of difference between painting, and working all
> day in front of a computer. I really think they are two entirely different
> jobs.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
I agree with you 100% on this, Michael. There is a very real difference. I
am a master with Adobe Photoshop, for example. I mean by this that I can
produce any species of image that you could possibly define with this very
powerful software. But this is a far cry from painting, and I would never
argue that Adobe Photoshop, or any other software. could be a substitute for
painting in any way, shape or form. Why? Simply because painting, for the
artist, is the sum of the involvement of the individual with the material. I
don't care what kind of rhetoric is generated by artists about painting and
its significance, in my view it all boils down to the interaction between the
craftsman and the material. Every material, whether it be paint, clay, wood,
metal -- has a resistance to formation -- it always wants to be something
else than what the artist wants it to be. Subsequently a holy war is played
out, and the very idea of mastery is based on the concept of forcing material
into new forms--pushing it, stretching it -- into something it doesn't
naturally want to be.
A coumpter? You just push buttons. It is pre-ordained, since the program you
are using is already designed to produce something you want to happen. It is
probably the exact opposite of a painting--painted with mischevious paint.
I'm just saying that I don't get my painting rocks off by generating computer
graphics -- I just get paid well to do it. (well enough to to escape in to
the usenet too frequently, I suppose). Equally, I don't satisfy my painting
urge by generating computer graphics.
Best,
Larry Seiler
it.
> The average design-fee rate in the US ranges around $65 per hour,
Well....that sounds more like you are describing "illustrators".....for
which aside from my fine art I freelance at. In my neck of the woods, it
is about $25-$35 per hour. In the Twin Cities about $35-$50.....and areas
like Chicago higher.
Also good illustrators tend to be flown about on special projects paying
$500-$750 per day. I know this because my sister works at one of the
largest and more successful advertising agencies out of Chicago having done
some ads we are all well acquainted with, and what their in-house artists
do not know how to do they hire freelance artists of reputation.
Of course....freelancing is a rough road, and if you prefer to be an
illustrator on staff...you are paid much much less.
I've personally not heard (thus you may be right), any design/graphic
artists which use basic Mac software design program making much more than
$18 per hour max...and that with great experience and proficiency. Could
be my part of the country though.
> Additionally, most design firms require degrees to even consider an
applicant
> -- along with a strong portfolio.
I did visit one advertising design agency in Minneapolis for a day...with
the executive of a large pizza making firm I did some freelance work for.
We brought our teenagers there for the day to give them some exposure, as
both possessed talents and were in their junior years.
We were told that about 80% of their artists hired came from the
Minneapolis College of Arts and Design.
While one would not need a degree, (and my son a prime example now a staff
artist for a magazine out of Chicago whom happened to have spent his every
waking preteen and teen moment developing his art, and is also listed in
Who's Who of Caracaturists).....consider that- a college buys and gets
available the latest technology and affords to keep a pulse on the changes
in the industry. They also bring in the leaders of the industry....for
example, a student of mine went to Pratt Institute to learn fashion design,
and Calvin Kline was brought in a number of times to have exchange with the
students.
Also...a staff helps prepare that student to market him/herself, put
together the proper portfolio, etc;
I would say...that as goes "fine arts".....there I would agree a degree
nearly almost seems to be a waste of time with exception of teaching. In
fact, many opt to go the route of education as near default because no
other field promises a livelihood.
Other than that.....the vast majority of art university departments operate
and keep particular professors for their "grant" writing abilities. The
acquisition thereafter of said grants means that the professor has proposed
a philosophy or agenda for which to guide and direct his methods and
students.
I had a professor in the 70's that had himself learned to paint with easel
in front of many master's works in the Louvre of Paris. I was discovering
myself, and expected college to foster the grounds to allow for a "safe
place" for such, however...only students whom squirted paint in cow manure
and whipped it at the canvas....or took the bottom half of a female manikin
and painted black stockings on the legs thereafter sticking a wisk broom in
the crotch, etc., were considered THEE true ARTstudents. I was interested
in how the Baroque artists captured light, and used it to direct the
viewer's eye, and how their color was so jewel-like.
My painting professor would show me none of it, and I would resolve to copy
images out of library books much to his shagrin. He would peer over my
easel and grunt disapprovals.
For years it had embittered me.....but after many years, I learned of the
grant procedures and the politics of one keeping his professorship and
landing tenure.
The bottom line is....the student was on the lowest end of the food chain.
A pawn in the game to be manipulated and played for sociological causes,
the whim of the money elite such as Carnegie Foundation whom gave grant
monies.
*shrug*
Here's what I'd recommend for those whom are so incredibly impassioned and
wish to learn for example to paint. Study at great length magazines such
as American Art Review, or Modern Painter...etc., find the work that
triggers spark for you. Then.....instead of paying enormous fees to
colleges, save that money, travel, and invest it in taking workshops from
those artists whose work you most admire and emulate.
They've painted 500-1000 paintings to gain the vision and insights that
they have, and one week with them will advance you far more than all the
400 level college degree painting courses you could ever happen to take.
peace...
mike...@my-dejanews.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> > I mean that Rembrandt, Monet, Titian, and those guys didn't have MFAs.
>
> Of course. The idea of an MFA didn't exist in the time of these artists.
> But I would argue that an equivalent concept existed. All these artists
> studied art, in one way or another--notably with early endenturement into the
> apothicaries guild and later into the studio of a master. (at least in
> Titian's case) And these programmes were typically more rigourous that most
> contemporary MFA programs. You must understand, Art = Intelligence, in some
> way or another.
I thought about this before I wrote my last post, but ignored it at the time
:)
There's a distinction between learning and getting a degree, and it's a
distinction that in America we don't seem to be able to make. In many
professions it's assumed you can't know anything unless you have a degree.
Abraham Lincoln was considered a great attorney (before he was President),
but the didn't have a law degree, and in fact he didn't even go to college.
Today, he'd be sent to jail for practicing law without proper qualifications.
Back to the issue of art, the artists of 200 years ago had it a lot harder
than we do today. Today you can go to a bookstore and buy a book that tells
you what you need to know, and you can go to an art supply store and buy
whatever art supplies you need.
200 years ago there were no art supply stores, and no books; everything was a
trade secret, and the only way to learn how to make your own paint was to
learn from someone who already knew how.
> > I didn't say that there isn't anything teachable with respect to art. But
> > there's a difference between taking classes and getting a degree. We were
> > talking about getting a degree.
>
> True, you didn't focus on that idea, but you implied that art could be self-
> taught, which I took exception to. I think you were focusing on the idea of
> the 'degree' as something that was independant of the curriculum. But there
> is a very strong validity to your focus, in my opinion, since often just the
> fact of having a degree is a form of currency, regardless if there was any
> learning behind the degree.
I think i've already responded to the above quote in my previous paragraphs.
But I agree that it is helpful to study with accomplished artists and I look
forward to taking some classes with such artists in the future.
> > We were talking about fine art before, but now we are talking about
commercial
> > art. I think I said that there are jobs in commercial art, and people have
to
> > go to vocational schools to qualify for those jobs. They don't teach
> > commercial art at real colleges, like Harvard, they only teach fine arts at
> > Harvard.
>
> No, you are incorrect. Many major Universities, like Harvard, have Industrial
> Design, Advertising Design, Computer Graphics, and etc. curriculum offered to
> their students. UC San Diego, for example, offers a MFA degree in computer
> graphics. You have to understand how the University system works--surveys are
> made in the community to determine what skills are going to be required five
> years down the line, in order to produce the talent necessary to fill these
> employment skill slots. If the studies determine that x number of qualified
> applicants are required in year 5 of the study, the University will develop
> curriculum to fill this need. This is the only way that the public expense of
> supporting education is workable. Take a look at a web site I design and
> maintain in this regard:
> http://www.ccst.ucr.edu
Major universities like Harvard have a very elitist attitude about what they
teach. Harvard doesn't teach auto repair even though there is a strong
demand in the community for auto repair skills. Fine art is considered real
learning, while commercial art is considered vocational. There may be some
exceptions and some blurring of boundries as you have pointed out, but I
believe that the essence of my statements hold true.
At the elite university where I obtained my undergraduate degree, I don't
recall any courses in commercial art or advertising; there was just fine arts.
> Well, I talked to a rep from Macromedia a couple of years ago that swore that
> anybody that was good at 3D graphics could write his own employment ticket.
> If you have ever been involved in the intracacies of the computer gaming
> industry, for example, you will quickly become aware of the market demand of
> a mountain of computer art necessary to support this high-income industry. I
> mean there are thousands of worker hours invested into the production of a
> game like "Riven" or "Tomb Raider" or "Pac Man". I garantee you that there's
> a significant demand for labor in these industires, and that demand is
> increasing in advance of the supply. (how else can a hick like me get more
> contracts than I can handle???)
Well those are like computer jobs, and there's a shortage of computer people.
Doesn't mean that a fine art degree will get you one of those jobs. They
teach that kind of stuff at vocational schools.
Regards,
Michael
mike...@my-dejanews.com
"Amanda Koh" <a...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> >In the United States, the only degrees with any truly practical use would be
> >computer programming and nursing.
>
> and in singapore, only degrees concerning business and marketing..... the IT
> industry is dominated by people with degrees in everything else except IT
> (like philosophy) and there are many non-graduates there.....
In the U.S., i think that most of the people in the IT industry don't have
computer degrees. That's because the DEMAND for IT people so OUTSTRIPS the
supply that companies are FORCED to hire people who are able to do the job
regardless of educational background.
This is how I came to be a computer programmer. I couldn't find any jobs at
all in what I majored in, and I thought myself to program, did some creative
fudging with my resume, and now I'm a computer programmer.
I wish I had majored in computers in college; if I had, then I'd be making a
lot more money now. I have to tell you how aggravating it is to have to pay
$600 a month in student loans for a wasted education; i could be doing what I
do now without even having gone to college.
As much as an education is valuable in and of itself, $600 a month is a LOT
of money and I really can't afford to pay it. (Furthermore, most American
college students aren't interested in learning anything at all; they just
want their degree because they think it is the path to making money. I get
so mad when our politicians in Washington D.C. promote more education as the
panacea for all that is ailing our country.)
> >There are jobs in teaching... at the college level, teaching
> >jobs are notoriously impossible to obtain. There are so many PhDs who are
> >woefully underemployed; it's very sad.
>
> that's true... that's why i'm posing the question to the newsgroup. i
> believe that there will always be jobs in your line of interest if you are
> keen enough and innovative enough.... that's why i'm looking to see what can
> come of this discussion, and to perhaps bring to the open the various lines
> that fine arts people or design people can go into and still enjoy the arts
> in their professions......
If there are 100,000 people graduating with a certain major, and only 10,000
job openings, then this means that 90,000 graduated will not find jobs in
their chosen field, a simple mathematical fact, and it doesn't matter how
keenly interested and innovative those unlucky 90,000 are.
If you're paying a lot of money to go to college, then a degree in computer
programming is like an investment, while a degree in a major in which jobs
are hard to come by is kind of like going to Las Vegas and playing the craps
tables.
> >Maybe you don't really need to go to college at all?
> not true in my context.... in singapore, people judge your character based
> on your occupation, and your occupation is determined by your
> qualifications. if i were to go into the arts with a degree, i would be
> considered innovative and creative..... if i didn't have a degree, i would
> be considered an idiot who couldn't do anything else. the arts in singapore
> are considered low brow entertainment, a little higher than a trip to the
> movies or to the shopping centre for that matter.....
In the United States, people also judge you based on your occupation. If you
meet someone at a party and start talking to them, one of the very FIRST
things they'll ask you is "what do you do?" Your occupation is so closely
woven in with your perceived personality that it cannot be separated. What
is the answer to this question if you don't care to talk about your
occupation? Can you say "none of you business?" Nope, not really.
I guarantee, though, that if I was to say "I am an artist" I'd be perceived
VERY differently than if I said I was a computer programmer, which in turn is
perceived very differently than being a lawyer or a stockbroker or a
collections manager. I've been all of the above.
Anyway, good luck with whatever you decide to do.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
Excellent critique of the higher educational system!!!
> The article stated how abysmally low
> the job placement rate was for MFA's in their chosen field, about the
> worst of any field of study: so frighteningly poor was the career
> placement rates among MFA's, that the analogy was that if the medical
> schools performed as poorly in placing their graduates in the medical
> profession as the MFA programs did in placing their grads in the arts,
> there would be an urgent and comprehensive Senate investigation
Thanks for that dose of reality. All masters and PhD programs suffer from
similarly dim job prospects for graduates. And the Senate doesn't seem to
care. In fact, the universities are in bed with the Democratic party. When
Clinton needed support, 400 left-wing "historians", mostly all college
professors, signed some document stating their support for Clinton. In
return, Clinton and the Democrats make sure the system is funded so that the
college professors keep their cushy jobs, and no one is concerned about the
students who hock themselves into debt to obtain a worthless degree.
The left-wing professors who supported Clinton are probably the same
professors who think that a crucifix suspended in a jar of urine is "art".
Sorry for the political diatribe.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
arts classes as a minor. At least you could do that at an American
university. College is pretty easy, there would be plenty of free time to
paint or do whatever while attending full time.
Stick to the computer stuff, or the computer/art stuff if that where your
interest is, but the point is that computer people are in demand right now.
You could make enough money so you only need to work part-time, giving you
free time to pursue art.
Regards,
Michael
mike...@my-dejanews.com
"Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
> I've personally not heard (thus you may be right), any design/graphic
> artists which use basic Mac software design program making much more than
> $18 per hour max...and that with great experience and proficiency. Could
> be my part of the country though.
Yep, that's what I was thinking.
> We were told that about 80% of their artists hired came from the
> Minneapolis College of Arts and Design.
Yep, that's what I told Erik, that you go to a special vocational school to do
that kind of work.
> I would say...that as goes "fine arts".....there I would agree a degree
> nearly almost seems to be a waste of time with exception of teaching. In
> fact, many opt to go the route of education as near default because no
> other field promises a livelihood.
Yes, I said that too!
Excellent post.
mdeli
>> > In the U.S., there are a pretty large number of jobs for people to do
>> > commercial design work, mostly computerized; these jobs don't pay a whole
>lot
For those who know their craft, not for those into Modern Academic
bullshit.
snip
>We were talking about fine art before, but now we are talking about commercial
>art.
Any artwork that sells is commercial.
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/
Note: There was an address error in former messages
The above address is correct. Please try again.
mdeli
>I would say...that as goes "fine arts".....there I would agree a degree
>nearly almost seems to be a waste of time with exception of teaching.
Well Larry it seems we agree
> In
>fact, many opt to go the route of education as near default because no
>other field promises a livelihood.
They have no other choice because they don't know anything.
>
>Other than that.....the vast majority of art university departments operate
>and keep particular professors for their "grant" writing abilities. The
>acquisition thereafter of said grants means that the professor has proposed
>a philosophy or agenda for which to guide and direct his methods and
>students.
---- to total failure
>
>I had a professor in the 70's that had himself learned to paint with easel
>in front of many master's works in the Louvre of Paris. I was discovering
>myself, and expected college to foster the grounds to allow for a "safe
>place" for such, however...only students whom squirted paint in cow manure
>and whipped it at the canvas....or took the bottom half of a female manikin
>and painted black stockings on the legs thereafter sticking a wisk broom in
>the crotch, etc., were considered THEE true ARTstudents. I was interested
>in how the Baroque artists captured light, and used it to direct the
>viewer's eye, and how their color was so jewel-like.
Well that's what I ve been saying all along
>My painting professor would show me none of it, and I would resolve to copy
>images out of library books much to his shagrin. He would peer over my
>easel and grunt disapprovals.
>
>For years it had embittered me.....but after many years, I learned of the
>grant procedures and the politics of one keeping his professorship and
>landing tenure.
--- which all here should learn right away.
>
>Here's what I'd recommend for those whom are so incredibly impassioned and
>wish to learn for example to paint. Study at great length magazines such
>as American Art Review, or Modern Painter...etc., find the work that
>triggers spark for you. Then.....instead of paying enormous fees to
>colleges, save that money, travel, and invest it in taking workshops from
>those artists whose work you most admire and emulate.
>
>They've painted 500-1000 paintings to gain the vision and insights that
>they have, and one week with them will advance you far more than all the
>400 level college degree painting courses you could ever happen to take.
I've been saying the same thing since I joined the conference. Perhaps
Eicher will also certify you as "insane."
mdeli
> "Amanda Koh" wrote:
>This is how I came to be a computer programmer. I couldn't find any jobs at
>all in what I majored in,
>I wish I had majored in computers in college; if I had, then I'd be making a
>lot more money now. I have to tell you how aggravating it is to have to pay
>$600 a month in student loans for a wasted education; i could be doing what I
>do now without even having gone to college.
Everyone take note.
>> >There are jobs in teaching... at the college level, teaching
>> >jobs are notoriously impossible to obtain. There are so many PhDs who are
>> >woefully underemployed; it's very sad.
Teaching art in university is a matter of nothing more than the right
connections. It has nothing to do with ability. Most of those who
teach art do so because they have no ability.
>If there are 100,000 people graduating with a certain major, and only 10,000
>job openings, then this means that 90,000 graduated will not find jobs in
>their chosen field, a simple mathematical fact, and it doesn't matter how
>keenly interested and innovative those unlucky 90,000 are.
It does matter because there are always jobs for those who can
illustrate on a superior level and there are so few artists who can
fit the bill.
>
>If you're paying a lot of money to go to college, then a degree in computer
>programming is like an investment, while a degree in a major in which jobs
>are hard to come by is kind of like going to Las Vegas and playing the craps
>tables.
>> >Maybe you don't really need to go to college at all?
College art should be avoided. Its pure bullshit.
>In the United States, people also judge you based on your occupation. If you
>meet someone at a party and start talking to them, one of the very FIRST
>things they'll ask you is "what do you do?" Your occupation is so closely
>woven in with your perceived personality that it cannot be separated. What
>is the answer to this question if you don't care to talk about your
>occupation? Can you say "none of you business?" Nope, not really.
Tell them what you think they want to hear.
>I guarantee, though, that if I was to say "I am an artist" I'd be perceived
>VERY differently than if I said I was a computer programmer, which in turn is
>perceived very differently than being a lawyer or a stockbroker or a
>collections manager. I've been all of the above.
If you are successful at what you do you wouldn't give a damn.
mdeli
school.
When it comes to drawing which is the foundation of all that follows
make sure the teacher can draw. Look at his work. If it is no better
or worse than that of the students he's definitely a loser. Also look
at the work of advanced students, if its no better than that of
earlier students the place is dreamland.
- Don't attend a school without first seeing the work of its students.
Ask yourself whether they can do something that you can't do. Then ask
yourself whether they can do something you want to do. Make sure you
feel that the student work is superior to yours. If you feel you can
do better work than the teacher or his students, forget it.
--If your teacher is extremely nice, utterly charming and glamorous,
always remember that this is no criterion for judgment. Never blindly
imitate a teacher to gain approval. If good grades are dependent on
this, as is often the case, get out of there fast. Fooling the
teacher amounts to fooling yourself. Good grades or certificates from
prestigious art schools will not help you in the long run. Unless you
have spectacular connections, you will be judged solely by the quality
of your work.
-Always keep an eye on what others are doing; other students can often
teach you more than the instructors.
-Try to get work in your field if you can, even while attending
school. Even if it is lowly work you will most likely learn much about
your profession which you can't get in school. Cash in on your
abilities as early as you can.
-Leave school as soon as you feel that you have acquired the knowledge
you needed to become professional or find that you aren't improving
any more. Remember that except for inmates, who are committed to these
institutions for life, school is a temporary state of affairs.
Remember, the more incompetent artists there are, the more work and
better living for the competent ones.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <redirect-230...@1cust14.tnt5.nyc3.da.uu.net>,
> redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
>
> Excellent critique of the higher educational system!!!
>
> > the job placement rate was for MFA's in their chosen field, about the
> > worst of any field of study: so frighteningly poor was the career
> > placement rates among MFA's, that the analogy was that if the medical
> > schools performed as poorly in placing their graduates in the medical
> > profession as the MFA programs did in placing their grads in the arts,
>
> Thanks for that dose of reality. All masters and PhD programs suffer from
> similarly dim job prospects for graduates.
Complete bullshit.
Since it's obvious that the best use one is likely to put an MFA to is toilet
paper, you trying to convince the poor saps that everyone else is in the same
boat?
>And the Senate doesn't seem to
> care
That you choose to spend your time getting a jack-off degree like
MFA is not the concern of the senate.
> In fact, the universities are in bed with the Democratic party.
This is true. Considering Barney Frank, possibly in several meanings of the
phrase :-)
> When
> Clinton needed support, 400 left-wing "historians", mostly all college
> professors, signed some document stating their support for Clinton
Yehp. That's about 5% of the "historians" in the US. Since the rest didn't,
that means that 95% thought he was a fucking joke and wanted his sorry ass
gone.
>. In
> return, Clinton and the Democrats make sure the system is funded so that the
> college professors keep their cushy jobs, and no one is concerned about the
> students who hock themselves into debt to obtain a worthless degree.
Your choice. Your ass. Don't piss and moan when you find your degree is
worthless. It's not like it wasn't painfully that an MFA is worthless for
employment.
Lot's of other people figured it out without the help of the Senate,
Democrats, or BJ Billy.
>
> The left-wing professors who supported Clinton are probably the same
> professors who think that a crucifix suspended in a jar of urine is "art".
They thought it was (figuratively) shit like everyone else did. However,
since it did piss off a lot of religious types, they hyped it as "art". Like
much of the shit that passes for "art," it's really just
communists/socialists/progressives playing games with people who don't know
any better.
BTW, it wasn't suspended and it was only a photograph of a crucifix in the
"Artist's" urine. One can only assume that he had a bull-whip shoved up his
ass while he was pissing in the bottle.
>
> Sorry for the poll diatribe.
You should be.
-N.
> In the U.S., i think that most of the people in the IT industry don't have
> computer degrees. That's because the DEMAND for IT people so OUTSTRIPS the
> supply that companies are FORCED to hire people who are able to do the job
> regardless of educational background.
>
> This is how I came to be a computer programmer. I couldn't find any jobs at
> all in what I majored in, and I thought myself to program, did some creative
> fudging with my resume, and now I'm a computer programmer.
>
> I wish I had majored in computers in college; if I had, then I'd be making a
> lot more money now. I have to tell you how aggravating it is to have to pay
> $600 a month in student loans for a wasted education; i could be doing what I
> do now without even having gone to college.
Of course, rights and wrongs here are individual matters. I am very happy
with my own education in the fine arts, and harbor no regrets. After
having been out of school, I started auditing design classes (not for
practical purposes of job potential [such practicality generally bores me]
but because my art at the time demanded to miror the image environement of
the culture as part of its expression. Only through toying with graphic
design (1990-91) did I really become more deeply exposed to computers than
I was in my primary fine art education (the Mac was there also).
Eventually, I came to understand the nature of the desktop revolution in
graphics and publishing, and in addition to the things I wished to do with
graphic imagery with respect to my art (and producing a book) I came
interested in the prospect of an avocation in computer graphics. It has
been all downhill from there. I never have worked in that industry,
although I am making preparations now to do so (I do this yearly then
decide against it). One thing I did notice, was that the folks studying
computer graphics were nothing like the folks I studied painting with
(despite studying computer graphics at SVA in NYC, an art school).
The passion just wasn't there in the work...painters in their
impracticality often are willing to sacrifice everything for their vision,
the folks studying com graphics seemed administrators, crossover
careerists from other backgrounds, and graphic art folks upgrading their
skills. An entirely different orientation to the task at hand than the
artists I had studied with...and deeply unfulfilling to me. It is rare for
me to have been inspired by computers other than the prospects of bringing
the tools into my art production scenario. Thank god I followed my
passions and decided to major in fine arts rather than the commercial arts
or graphics...I can't imagine the latter being anything but frustrating
for one of my sensibility and temperment...I have no interest or concern
whatsoever as to what is the best way visually to sell a clients toilet
paper business...I am only concerned with solving my own problems
visually, not someone elses, particularly when other's problems are in my
opinion not only unispiring, but a waste of precious time and resources
better put into my art. Commercial art or doing visual work to suit a
client is a vast world of difference from tracking the development of your
own intellect, emotions, viual sensibility, and technical challanges...a
world of difference with little crossover, YMMV.
To each their own.
Cheers,
Amanda Koh
"Where ever you are, that is the center of the universe. Making art means
making sense of the situations your life takes you into , being responsive
to the culture you have chosen to breed yourself in. You don't need fancy
equipment, you don't need fancy clothes, you don't need the US of A, you
don't need a high income, you don't need fame and fortune. You do need
imagination. NYC and LA hold absolutely no monopoly on that. Any pundit that
tells you otherwise is full of it. Think of the last time you expereinced
art that was so vital that it fully
transformed your life...those art expereinces are as rare, I assure you , in
NYC as they are in Singapore. "
u don't know how much this sorts things out for me....
let me tell u and everyone else who reads this thread, i may be idealistic
in saying this, but i feel passionately that i need to do something for the
arts scene in singapore, to bring it to the people and to make them see that
its not just entertainment, that its art.... and that it can be a beautiful
and wonderful experience....
its true that the best experience in art that one can obtain would be in the
so called meccas that everyone's been talking about, but those are saturated
markets.... and even if u are VERY GOOD, you are just another one of the
many there.... in singapore, you are one of the pioneer few who endeavour
into the arts scene.... these are few and far between....
"Additionally, you may find that what you learn in a BFA or MFA program has
little application to what you wish to express, whatever else they are, they
are systems of indoctrination...and represent only one method of developing
as an artist. "
well... i think i explained in another message why i NEED the
qualifications... but to reiterate, singaporeans only look at people with
degrees.... people without them are nothing here.... even if it means that i
won't be using the degree in the line that i originally wanted..... its
leverage and a passport to be recognised.... if not, i'm just another person
who can't do anything else..... that is UNFORTUNATELY the sort of society
that i live in :-( alas.... u see my dilemma now ???
"I am of the opinion that the idea of the private artist is as valid or more
so than the public artist. You will know when you are an artist, and you
will know what you need to be doing. No amount of school will ever teach you
that. An BFA, MFA, or PHD degree does not make you an artist."
believe me... i am of that opinion too.... i hate that i need
qualifications.... i would so much rather learn something for the love of
it, rather than to take exams on it.... i love music and i hate exams... i
did my diploma because if not, no one would recognise my abilities.... even
if i was very very good.... that is singaporean society for you.... a degree
doesn't make u an artist... i agree.... but it gives you licence in my
society, to be one that can ultimately be accepted by the people...
"Money is going into technology, and into arts based on the new technology,
because that is where a great deal of money, public exposure, and funding
is. It is also eating into and eroding the financial base of the traditional
arts, redirecting funds to other media"
thanks for the advice ...... commercial arts have been something that i've
greatly been considering myself... it allows me to work with art while at
the same time, having commercial viability.... i do have to be practical....
"One may have to be prepared for many obstacles in living as an artist,
including being frustrated, misunderstood, and poor. But again, imagination
can overcome these obstacles and turn them into doors of opportunity"
ahhhh..... at last u see the practical side... that's been holding me
back...... the obstacles... i must admit that while i do need to make some
money to look after myself, i'm not looking to make a big fortune.... that's
not the reason why i'm interested in art.... IT NEVER WAS !!!
imagination.... i guess so.... doors of opportunity.... well... those are
inspiring words to me.... it does make my decision an easier one... tho i
still haven't made up my mind..... i've got 2 weeks more b4 i get my gce a
level results and then do my uni applications.....
thanks again.....
Amanda
There are 3 types of people in the world,
those who make things happen,
those who watch things happen
and those who wonder what just happened.
this is an e-mail from Amanda
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mike...@my-dejanews.com (MikeGeezer) wrote:
> I thought Kenneth Baker's previous job was at The Boston Phoenix (an
> alternative paper) .
>
Maybe both -- I don't really know. but I have a pretty clear memory that his
move was quite controversial -- leaving NY and landing in SF -- many thought
this was an 'indicator' that the art scene was shifting also. Some
complained that the Chronicle simply offered him a deal he couldn't refuse,
and that KB had 'sold out.'
Erik Mattila
Jenn
Bachelor of Fuck All.
I think it depends on where you are in your art making. If you have been
producing art for years and are with a gallery, then I wouldn't bother.
But if your at the stage where you know you like art and would like to be an
artist but dont have any real theme or style or anything, then its a great
idea to do a degree. The contact with other artists is invaluable, and
you'll really work out where your going with your work.
If perhaps you are just doing art as a hobby at the moment then a degree may
help you get more focused.
It doesn't have to be a degree even, what about TAFE (I dont know if you
have TAFE equvalents, its a Tec you get certificates in subjects and they
are quite good too)
As for credability in the industry??? I think it certainly will make an
impression. It will show that you were dedicated enough to go through a
degree. But in the end no degree is about the piece of paper you get at the
end.... its about what you learn from it.
If you feel you need to grow more in your art then I say go for it. But if
your doing it just for the letters at the end of your name.... very probably
a waste of time.
Now as for your proffesion question. Im just about to start a new degree,
this time is design visual communications. Before I would not have been able
to get into it, my marks from high school were too low and it is a very
difficult course... but now I have an edge. I got in no trouble because of
my degree in fine art and it gives me an advantage over many designers.. I
have creativity.. and many designers today are simply copying others. So a
Fine Arts degree is an EXCELLENT background course for other related
subjects like design. If you dont feel like you'd be able to get into a
design course then try the Fine Art first (lots of fun and helps your art)
and then go on from there.
I find they both play off each other. My art helps my design - my design
helps my art.
Hope its of some help
Good luck
Amanda Koh wrote in message <7amugj$a6v$1...@newton.pacific.net.sg>...
>Dear All
>
>i am interested in doing a degree in fine arts but am holding back because
i
>don't know how commercially viable something like that would be.... i don't
>want to be stuck with a useless degree....
>
>so does any one know wot sort of professions a person with a fine arts
>degree would be able to pursue ??? i am interested in graphic design.
>
>i live in singapore where the arts are not really well established as we
are
>basically an entreprenual society that is not yet able to open up to the
>arts yet. so you understand my hesitance to take on this pursuit even tho
my
>heart is very much into it ?
>
>Amanda
>
>
>
>
Kay Kane
mdeli wrote in message <36d315c7...@news.interlog.com>...
>Many people have asked me for some suggestions about finding a
>school.
>
>When it comes to drawing which is the foundation of all that follows
>make sure the teacher can draw. Look at his work. If it is no better
>or worse than that of the students he's definitely a loser. Also look
>at the work of advanced students, if its no better than that of
>earlier students the place is dreamland.
Silly statement...Most beginning art students don't have the knowledge (yet)
to know what is good or bad art and if they are directly out of high school,
their taste will probably run toward fantasy art - dragons and unicorns and
such.
>
>- Don't attend a school without first seeing the work of its students.
>Ask yourself whether they can do something that you can't do. Then ask
>yourself whether they can do something you want to do. Make sure you
>feel that the student work is superior to yours. If you feel you can
>do better work than the teacher or his students, forget it.
Vanity is a natural state to the beginning student. It is very hard to
teach some students, but, then again, I WAS always better than my peers...
>
>--If your teacher is extremely nice, utterly charming and glamorous,
>always remember that this is no criterion for judgment. Never blindly
>imitate a teacher to gain approval. If good grades are dependent on
>this, as is often the case, get out of there fast.
Some teachers will be nice; some will be shits. Some will care and some
won't. Always been like that, most likely, always will. Doesn't make
learning invalid though.
Fooling the
>teacher amounts to fooling yourself. Good grades or certificates from
>prestigious art schools will not help you in the long run.
Many art schools no longer use the grading system, just "Pass/Fail"
Saying you went to certain prestigious art schools certainly CAN help open
doors and since they usually attract more established (read "famous")
artists/teachers you may be fortunate enough to be "mentored" and have even
more doors open.
Unless you
>have spectacular connections, you will be judged solely by the quality
>of your work.
School is a wonderful place to make those spectacular connections. School
should help one improve the quality of one's work.
>
>-Always keep an eye on what others are doing; other students can often
>teach you more than the instructors.
Students can give input, but if you are going to school to seek the advice
of students, then your priorities are screwed up...
>
>-Try to get work in your field if you can, even while attending
>school. Even if it is lowly work you will most likely learn much about
>your profession which you can't get in school. Cash in on your
>abilities as early as you can.
Don't listen to Mani, he's wrong. Just try and do as much work, learn as
many techniques and meet as many professionals as you can. If you worry
about selling while you are a student, your art won;t grow. Besides, your
abilities won't weaken or dry up, they will grow stronger and better.
>
>-Leave school as soon as you feel that you have acquired the knowledge
>you needed to become professional or find that you aren't improving
>any more. Remember that except for inmates, who are committed to these
>institutions for life, school is a temporary state of affairs.
Get the diploma! Do you consider someone who has went to high school for 2
years a "graduate" or a "drop-out"? What implications come into your mind
about the one who finishes Vs the one who doesn't?
>
>Remember, the more incompetent artists there are, the more work and
>better living for the competent ones.
Unclear.
Kay Kane
P.S. Mani, how far in school did you go and why such a pessimistic attitude
toward artists?
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7audan$4...@newsops.execpc.com>,
> "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
> > I've personally not heard (thus you may be right), any design/graphic
> > artists which use basic Mac software design program making much more than
> > $18 per hour max...and that with great experience and proficiency. Could
> > be my part of the country though.
>
> Yep, that's what I was thinking.
Of course, it's a 'whatever the market will bear' situation. But I used the
figure of $65 per hour as an average design fee, which includes those who
charge 6 bucks an hour and those who charge 300 bucks an hour. A design fee
is what the client makes, not necessarily what a designer earns. I estimate
that I "earn" about 60% of what I charge, the rest going to the indirects of
running a business.
>
> > We were told that about 80% of their artists hired came from the
> > Minneapolis College of Arts and Design.
>
> Yep, that's what I told Erik, that you go to a special vocational school to do
> that kind of work.
>
> > I would say...that as goes "fine arts".....there I would agree a degree
> > nearly almost seems to be a waste of time with exception of teaching. In
> > fact, many opt to go the route of education as near default because no
> > other field promises a livelihood.
>
> Yes, I said that too!
I didn't earn an MFA, since I studied Art History and Critical Theory in
Graduate school. I completed an undergraduate degree in Art Studio after
working several years as a graphic designer and graphic artist (actually
working in the printing industry) with occassional stints of making art and
selling it. I can't say that earning the degree (I didn't finish my graduate
degree) had any direct effect on my ability to earn a living -- but it had a
strong indirect effect since I learned a great deal that I didn't already
know. So I think saying this is a 'waste of time' in nonsense. The very
fact of having any sort of college degree opens doors and it is pretty
difficult not to learn anything while earning the degree (as hard as I tried
to not learn).
I am also troubled at the idea of recommending to a person that they
shouldn't seek an education. Of course anyone can learn to smear paint
around cleverly if they do it long enough -- but most college experiences are
much more than that. Often a person finds something else in college to
pursue, that never would have been a possibility had they not gone to
college. Well, I like the old axiom: a self-taught artist has a fool for a
teacher.
>
When you say 'vocational school' it's generally indicative of schools that
offer certificate programs rather than accredited degrees. Another
distinction, at least by academic standards, is the level of training that is
offered, often divided into trade and professional categories. But I can work
with your definition. Here's rather cursory list of full-fledged acamdemic
programs that offer graphic arts/design degrees. I've included Otis and Art
Center, even though you may think of them as voc-ed institutions (which is
pretty silly), simply because they are so prestigeous and offer MFA degrees
in Fine Art as well as several design focuses:
1. Digital Media Major at University of Denver 2. Stanford -- Product Design
Degree 3. Loyola University New Orleans - BA in graphic design 4. Idaho State
U. Graphic Arts/Printing Tech degree. Dept. of Communication & Theatre. 5.
St. Edwards U, Austin, TX. Graphic Arts degree 6. Westfield State College,
Mass, Graphic Design program. 7. St. Mary's College, KS,
Communications-Graphic Arts emphasis 8. California State University at Chico.
Graphic Arts Major 9. Champlain College, Vermont, Multimedia & Graphic
Design 10. Arizona State University, MS in Graphic Design* 11. California
State U. Long Beach - Industrial/Interior Design, Illustration, Visual
Communication. 12. Otis College of Art and Design, MFA programs in several
graphic arts fields 13. ArtCenter College of Design, ditto 14. UC Davis,
Environmental Design Department, Design Program -- majors in visual
communications and presentaton (graphic arts). 15. San Francisco State
University, Design & Industry Dept. 16. MIT: School of Architecture: Media
Lab: 17. UC San Diego: Visual Arts Department: MFA in 'computing in the arts'
18. UC Los Angeles: School of Arts and Architecture: Design Department. MFA
in Graphic Design, BA in Graphic Design
And the list could go on and on.
Blue Moon
says...
>But in the end no degree is about the piece of paper you get at the
>end.... its about what you learn from it.
>If you feel you need to grow more in your art then I say go for it. But if
>your doing it just for the letters at the end of your name.... very probably
>a waste of time.
Ahhhhh... an echo I hear. What I've copied above from your longer
essay is the crux of the matter. What I found during my school years
was that there was a perception among undergrads that ART was a
fluff course. They thought it easy get a college degree
and satisfy parental demands that they get an education. while
allowing them to have total freedom to NOT learn a thing and
indulge themselves in whatever was 'more important' at the time
than their education.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
myself.
> I have just finished my degree in Fine Art
> Im just about to start a new degree,
> this time is design visual communications.
Sounds to me like you're 22 years old and don't have any real world hard
knocks kind of experience, so your whole basis for judging your degree is all
the positive stuff that has been fed into you from your fellow students and
your professors and the general self-congratulatory college atmosphere.
When I was your age (which was only a few years ago) I also was in no basis
to judge whether or not my college education was useful. I have subsequently
come to the conclusion that college degrees are vastly overrated. I should
know, I have two of them.
> I got in no trouble because of
> my degree in fine art and it gives me an advantage over many designers.. I
> have creativity.. and many designers today are simply copying others. So a
> Fine Arts degree is an EXCELLENT background course for other related
> subjects like design.
I doubt very much that creativity is something that can simply be taught to
you. On another negative note, and this applies not to Fine Art degrees
which I really don't know much about, but degrees in general, if you have a
degree in a topic unrelated to the job in which you are applying, the degree
is viewed negatively. Employers are looking for people cut into a precise
mold, and if you don't fit the mold exactly they want no part of you. This
is how it is in corporate America.
I know in college you are fed the idea the learning and acquiring of knowledge
is a wonderful thing, but it's seen as bad thing when you are looking for a
job.
That all said, if I won the lottery, I might go get an MFA. It would sure as
hell be a lot more fun than going to work every day. Education in general is
a lot more fun than going to work. That's why it is so seductive, because
it's easy and you can talk yourself into believing that you are gaining
future benefit from it.
-N.
<a...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> thank you !!! i am truly inspired !!!
>
> "Where ever you are, that is the center of the universe. Making art means
> making sense of the situations your life takes you into , being responsive
> to the culture you have chosen to breed yourself in. You don't need fancy
> equipment, you don't need fancy clothes, you don't need the US of A, you
> don't need a high income, you don't need fame and fortune. You do need
> imagination. NYC and LA hold absolutely no monopoly on that. Any pundit that
> tells you otherwise is full of it. Think of the last time you expereinced
> art that was so vital that it fully
> transformed your life...those art expereinces are as rare, I assure you , in
> NYC as they are in Singapore. "
>
> u don't know how much this sorts things out for me....
>
> let me tell u and everyone else who reads this thread, i may be idealistic
> in saying this, but i feel passionately that i need to do something for the
> arts scene in singapore, to bring it to the people and to make them see that
> its not just entertainment, that its art.... and that it can be a beautiful
> and wonderful experience....
It seems like you are trying to define for yourself the role you wish to
play as an artist. Depending on what it is that you will express in your
art, how you wish for it to function in your culture, and how this is
generated out of your own cultural/personal material and situation, you
may find that trying to become a NYC-type artist may be completely beside
the point. Having the courage to confront one's more obstensibly banal,
everyday, personal, and indiosyncratic material and making sense of
it...giving it expression and body through art, may be more vitally the
crux of the artistic issue, than trying to parrrot another culture, a
famous artist, a generic model of 'artistic success', or desiring and
pursuing acceptance by ignoring what is unique in you and trying to
conform yourself to an international industry standard. I think making art
and evolving one's vision is hard work...it is often complicated and
thwarted by a desire for originality, success, etc. (all of which may be
completely beside the point). It is not easy to try and confront your own
individuality uniqueness when such is not in demand, not rewarded, and not
afforded the luxury of being understood by others. If you are honest and
vigiliant in defining and understanding your own vital artistic needs,
then I think you stand a better chance for personal success in art (and
there are some forms of success that may only erode and detour you from
your 'true' vision).
> its true that the best experience in art that one can obtain would be in the
> so called meccas that everyone's been talking about,
I disagree.
I have made vital art in a variety of environments. I once did an art
resdidency in Omaha, Nebraska...I didn't know what to expect. The city
was a virtual vacuum ghost town (both commercially and artistically). The
'vacuum' was an inspiration to me. Working in a marginal art environment
was inspiring. I found myself exploring things I would never have in my
routine NYC art-life: agricultural chemistry, pulling at Science
Department Heads ears in the local university (while never before having
much interest in science or chemistry). The area had alot of farmland and
the situation of finding myself in that environment prompted my painting
to integrate local concerns to create a grand synthesis in my approach to
making paintings. Additionally, to get info in Omaha was easy, as everyone
had TIME, and was more than willing to share it with you! What a shocker
after being in NYC! I would call a digital firm up for info...requesting
that they mail me information...instead I would be told, "I'll drive by on
my way home from work and drop it off to you in person."! I never heard of
such behavior in New York! Its not where you are but what you do there
that defines the art. I've lived in New York for 15 years: it is one small
provincial corner of the world...do a bit of traveling and you will
discover vital cultures and communities all over the place...and if they
are not vital it is more likely your own failings than theirs. The
cultures that keep one eye cocked to NYC are missing what lies directly at
their feet. I'm sure the world is just dripping for one more version of
the USA/NY career artist, exported back to Singapore. How did you guys get
by so long without it? You are nothing and don't even exist, and never
have existed until you get wise and mimick NYC.
You call that art? Sounds like cultural imperialism. What do you really
hope to accomplish?
but those are saturated
> markets.... and even if u are VERY GOOD, you are just another one of the
> many there.... in singapore, you are one of the pioneer few who endeavour
> into the arts scene.... these are few and far between....
Sounds exciting to me...better than the jaded been there, done that
attitude in NYC. A better challange I cannot imagine.
> "Additionally, you may find that what you learn in a BFA or MFA program has
> little application to what you wish to express, whatever else they are, they
> are systems of indoctrination...and represent only one method of developing
> as an artist. "
>
> well... i think i explained in another message why i NEED the
> qualifications... but to reiterate, singaporeans only look at people with
> degrees.... people without them are nothing here.... even if it means that i
> won't be using the degree in the line that i originally wanted..... its
> leverage and a passport to be recognised.... if not, i'm just another person
> who can't do anything else..... that is UNFORTUNATELY the sort of society
> that i live in :-( alas.... u see my dilemma now ???
I do. I am not suggesting it will be easy. The task you have set for
yourself will take an extraordinary individual. One would have to rise to
the occasion and like doing so. Conversly, playing devil's advocate, by
the time you have transformed yourself into an acceptable, digestable,
reasonable package for the status quo, you may find that you have
transformed yourself into an acceptable, digestable, reasonable package.
Usually it is the boldness, courage, vision, uniqueness, unforeseen
commitment and direction that interest me in artists. Those that tread
well worn paths, no matter how many laurels they collect along the way,
just don't seem to stir my imagination at the depths that are the most
refreshing and rewarding. I love to see an artist I do not quite
understand, from left field, or from outside the field entirely...an
oddballl rising up despite the obstacles and the odds against one ever
doing so. One will not be able to make decisions such as these
overnight...they will take a lifetime to develop, understand, and realize.
> "I am of the opinion that the idea of the private artist is as valid or more
> so than the public artist. You will know when you are an artist, and you
> will know what you need to be doing. No amount of school will ever teach you
> that. An BFA, MFA, or PHD degree does not make you an artist."
>
> believe me... i am of that opinion too.... i hate that i need
> qualifications.... i would so much rather learn something for the love of
> it, rather than to take exams on it.... i love music and i hate exams... i
> did my diploma because if not, no one would recognise my abilities.... even
> if i was very very good.... that is singaporean society for you.... a degree
> doesn't make u an artist... i agree.... but it gives you licence in my
> society, to be one that can ultimately be accepted by the people...
Than you will have to weigh how much acceptance means to you and come to
your own truthful answer. It is important for you to persue your own
life-path, not mine, or anothers. Listen to your own needs, don't allow
anyone to belittle them.
> "Money is going into technology, and into arts based on the new technology,
> because that is where a great deal of money, public exposure, and funding
> is. It is also eating into and eroding the financial base of the traditional
> arts, redirecting funds to other media"
>
> thanks for the advice ...... commercial arts have been something that i've
> greatly been considering myself... it allows me to work with art while at
> the same time, having commercial viability.... i do have to be practical....
Practicality seems of issue. You seem clearly to understand that about yourself.
> "One may have to be prepared for many obstacles in living as an artist,
> including being frustrated, misunderstood, and poor. But again, imagination
> can overcome these obstacles and turn them into doors of opportunity"
>
> ahhhh..... at last u see the practical side... that's been holding me
> back...... the obstacles... i must admit that while i do need to make some
> money to look after myself, i'm not looking to make a big fortune.... that's
> not the reason why i'm interested in art.... IT NEVER WAS !!!
I'm old school: I believe making art involves suffering. I think it
difficult just to get to a point where you can commit yourself to the
right KIND of suffering, to detach from the overwhelming trivial demands
of simply living. Part of being an artist may mean staking a claim for
what you believe is the important spirit in life and investing your life
in it, and avoiding the rest if it does not apply. Society will not grant
you this...you will have to struggle, fight, and suffer for this if you
expect at all to realize your goals with art. Obstacles are inherent and
very much define the enterprize, and are to be expected. Many are
destroyed by the obstacles, their meddle has been tested and they have
been found wanting...just peruse some of the posters on this newsgroup,
there is a great deal of bitter artists out there. Picking a path that is
right for you is important. At any point along the path, a redirection in
your own direction may be beneficial and desirable...you know, stay loose,
keep open, be ready to change, rather than to become ossified for an
unfunctioning ideal.
> imagination.... i guess so.... doors of opportunity.... well... those are
> inspiring words to me.... it does make my decision an easier one... tho i
> still haven't made up my mind..... i've got 2 weeks more b4 i get my gce a
> level results and then do my uni applications.....
>
> thanks again.....
Right-on.
Cheers,
mdeli
Well here's a representation from both sides. Let the student decide
for himself
>
>mdeli wrote
>>When it comes to drawing which is the foundation of all that follows
>>make sure the teacher can draw. Look at his work. If it is no better
>>or worse than that of the students he's definitely a loser. Also look
>>at the work of advanced students, if its no better than that of
>>earlier students the place is dreamland.
>
>Silly statement...Most beginning art students don't have the knowledge (yet)
>to know what is good or bad art and if they are directly out of high school,
>their taste will probably run toward fantasy art - dragons and unicorns and
>such.
You don't need any knowledge to see whether someone knows how to draw.
Those who draw dragons and unicorns usually know how to draw.
University drawing teachers usually don't. Has nothing to do with
taste.
>>- Don't attend a school without first seeing the work of its students.
>>Ask yourself whether they can do something that you can't do. Then ask
>>yourself whether they can do something you want to do. Make sure you
>>feel that the student work is superior to yours. If you feel you can
>>do better work than the teacher or his students, forget it.
>
>Vanity is a natural state to the beginning student. It is very hard to
>teach some students, but, then again, I WAS always better than my peers...
Vanity is usually what is taught instead of rote.
>>--If your teacher is extremely nice, utterly charming and glamorous,
>>always remember that this is no criterion for judgment. Never blindly
>>imitate a teacher to gain approval. If good grades are dependent on
>>this, as is often the case, get out of there fast.
>
>Some teachers will be nice; some will be shits. Some will care and some
>won't. Always been like that, most likely, always will. Doesn't make
>learning invalid though.
This says nothing and it hasn't always been that way.
>
> Fooling the
>>teacher amounts to fooling yourself. Good grades or certificates from
>>prestigious art schools will not help you in the long run.
>
>Many art schools no longer use the grading system, just "Pass/Fail"
>Saying you went to certain prestigious art schools certainly CAN help open
>doors and since they usually attract more established (read "famous")
>artists/teachers you may be fortunate enough to be "mentored" and have even
>more doors open.
Baloney
> Unless you
>>have spectacular connections, you will be judged solely by the quality
>>of your work.
>
>School is a wonderful place to make those spectacular connections. School
>should help one improve the quality of one's work.
Schools rarely help either way ask the average starving artist with a
degree.
>>-Always keep an eye on what others are doing; other students can often
>>teach you more than the instructors.
>
>Students can give input, but if you are going to school to seek the advice
>of students, then your priorities are screwed up...
Indeed, if you have to learn from students than the school is a bit of
a failure.
>>-Try to get work in your field if you can, even while attending
>>school. Even if it is lowly work you will most likely learn much about
>>your profession which you can't get in school. Cash in on your
>>abilities as early as you can.
>
>Don't listen to Mani, he's wrong. Just try and do as much work, learn as
>many techniques and meet as many professionals as you can. If you worry
>about selling while you are a student, your art won;t grow. Besides, your
>abilities won't weaken or dry up, they will grow stronger and better.
>
If you can't sell or get a job get another profession.
>>-Leave school as soon as you feel that you have acquired the knowledge
>>you needed to become professional or find that you aren't improving
>>any more. Remember that except for inmates, who are committed to these
>>institutions for life, school is a temporary state of affairs.
>
>Get the diploma! Do you consider someone who has went to high school for 2
>years a "graduate" or a "drop-out"? What implications come into your mind
>about the one who finishes Vs the one who doesn't?
>>
>>Remember, the more incompetent artists there are, the more work and
>>better living for the competent ones.
>
>Unclear.
... to all failures who need art as a religion instead of a
profession
>
>P.S. Mani, how far in school did you go and why such a pessimistic attitude
>toward artists?
I went to two schools one an artzy fartzy academy from which I had the
good fortune to be expelled and one where I learned about the
profession. You can read about it in my book. It was all very amusing.
I have a negative attitude toward the phonies that run the Modern
Academic Art business.
mdeli
large snip
>I have made vital art in a variety of environments.
What's "vital art?'
snip
>I'm old school: I believe making art involves suffering.
Sounds more like your of the failure school. I guess if you want to
suffer like N get an art diploma.
> I think it
>difficult just to get to a point where you can commit yourself to the
>right KIND of suffering, to detach from the overwhelming trivial demands
>of simply living. Part of being an artist may mean staking a claim for
>what you believe is the important spirit in life and investing your life
>in it, and avoiding the rest if it does not apply. Society will not grant
>you this...you will have to struggle, fight, and suffer for this if you
>expect at all to realize your goals with art. Obstacles are inherent and
>very much define the enterprize, and are to be expected. Many are
>destroyed by the obstacles, their meddle has been tested and they have
>been found wanting...just peruse some of the posters on this newsgroup,
>there is a great deal of bitter artists out there. Picking a path that is
>right for you is important. At any point along the path, a redirection in
>your own direction may be beneficial and desirable...you know, stay loose,
>keep open, be ready to change, rather than to become ossified for an
>unfunctioning ideal.
The usual mantra for the suffering artzy fartzy failure. Yeah," stay
loose, keep open, be ready to change." Whatever that means
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7audan$4...@newsops.execpc.com>,
> "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
> > I've personally not heard (thus you may be right), any design/graphic
> > artists which use basic Mac software design program making much more than
> > $18 per hour max...and that with great experience and proficiency. Could
> > be my part of the country though.
>
> Yep, that's what I was thinking.
>
> > Minneapolis College of Arts and Design.
>
> Yep, that's what I told Erik, that you go to a special vocational school to do
> that kind of work.
>
> > I would say...that as goes "fine arts".....there I would agree a degree
> > nearly almost seems to be a waste of time with exception of teaching. In
> > fact, many opt to go the route of education as near default because no
> > other field promises a livelihood.
>
> Yes, I said that too!
>
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
Opp, I posted a reply last night but it has evaporated into cyberspace. But
here's a recap --
By definition "vocation education' institutions offer certificates, and in
some cases AA degrees. Any college, even if it specialized in something like
'business management' or 'graphics arts' that offeres a BA or MFA would not
be considered a 'voc ed' college. Additionally, there's a difference between
training for trade skill and professional skills. These are the kinds of
distinctions made by Accreditation Associations, which are the organizations
that determine and enforce academic liscensing. But your definition, albeit
technically incorrect, is never-the-less understandable, so here's below is a
list of colleges which are academic yet offer design degrees in several
related fields.
UC Davis, Environmental Design Dept. St. Marys College, Vermont UC Los
Angeles San Francisco State University UC San Diego Stanford University Idaho
State University Arizona State University California State University Long
Beach Loyola College, New Orleans Harvard (although architecture/landscape)
MIT - Media Lab and on and on...that's just the tip of the iceberg. I just
did a brief web search to come up with about 25 major u's that offer design
degrees. (these are what I remember).
You can find many more by doing a search for 'design degrees' or 'graphic arts
programs' etc.
And add ArtCenter College of Design and Otis College of Design, (although you
may erroneously consider these to be vocational educational institutions)
since they both offer MFA degrees in Fine Arts as well as several design
fields -- and even MFA's in theory and criticism which is all
book-learnin'curriculum.
One problem about knowing about design degrees is that the curriculum is
often tucked away in strange university departments or programs, such as
'communication studies' or 'industrial society' instead of the 'art
department' that we normally look at. But go ahead, start visiting on-line
catalogs of various colleges and universities, and you will see your
'vocational education' hypothesis weakens a bit.
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
Interesting. I fell into computer graphics as a fluke. As I was trying to
wrap up my BFA degree, I needed to take some science classes, and found a
very low tech class at a nearby private community college that I thought
might satisfy the requirement (it didn't). So here was an array of early
Mac's at my disposal, with MacPaint and FullPaint. But the instructor also
had a beta version of what became Adobe Illustrator, so I spent the semester
ignoring his course material and teaching myself Illustrator -- since it was
the only software around that could generate a half-way decent image. The
college ended up hiring me as their graphics art department, and I ended up
working there for the next ten years. Not long afterwards I was the computer
graphics/desktop publishing instructor, and eventually we instituted full
fledged multimedia courses.
I think that what becomes of the digital image,in-so-far as "Art" is
concerned, is a wide open question. But really, one of the great impediments
thus far was output devices. Now that high resolution ink-jets are available
cheaply, who knows what will happen. Anyone who is interested in this should
keep up with MIT's "Leonardo" magazine, which is also on-line.
But N, you've hit the nail on the head with your comments about the artist's
role in a design contract. You really have to provide what the customer
wants. But this has always been the case with the advertising design
profession. In the late sixties I worked in a Studio in Newport Beach, CA.
and we continuoulsy produced the most boring, stupid projects, on customer
demand, but we were just grunts -- no matter how hard we tried to pretend to
be members of a creative avant garde. I can well remember cutting out tiny
little bits of type to rubber cement into a tire-advertisment that was going
into a newspaper, with the client breathing down my back asking "when are you
going to be done!" So one day the Laguna Beach Chamber of Commerce hands us
a brochure contract, and we're jumping up and down since we thought we
finally had an interesting job -- Laguna Beach being an art center and all
that. But when we presented our ideas it was all shot down by a bunch of
Republican Business types who were afraid to say something that hadn't
already been said--and the project turned into just another dumb piece of
paper.
So it's just work. It's a little better for me now, but I still have to
sublimate my better sense and superior experience to a myriad of
self-appointed 'art directors' who have no design sense. But there's an
interesting challenge there, and that is to make the crappiest idea look
good. That's what it's all about. I think in the commercial reality of
design, the skill is working under the severest of constraints and pulling it
off. Seperates the chaff from the wheat.
But what you describe above as the character of the 'computer artists' you've
encountered is really an important crises in the industry. There seems to be
a pretty well defined disjunction between the techno-nerd and the art-nerd.
A good deal of work I do, since I get a lot of contracts that are connected
with academic institutions (an accident) is to rework the products of
techno-nerds that are incredibly ugly. So what is rare in the job market, is
a good artist with commercially viable computer skills. In this sense the
formal study of fine art, and degrees in fine art, are wonderful.
But if you look at graphic software development you can see the intrinsic
'promise' of this software that if you learn to push the right buttons you
will become an artist, or designer. This just isn't the case. I can spot a
computer graphic done by someone with no formal training in a New York
Minute. What's really funny is if you look at the software newsgroups you
will see a general aversion to any discussion about 'art' or 'design' issues,
instead the focus is on buttons. That should tell you something. So formal
art training and computer skills is a good marriage, and something that will
become more marketable.
But I would be really interested in your thoughts about the 'art' issue in
relation to comp. graphics. I have a lot of trouble resolving this myself --
the key board and mouse aren't saying 'fine art' to me, or maybe it's more
generic than that -- how one handles and shapes and struggles with material
to make art. All that seems to be cut out, by process, in producing and
image. I'm just at a loss about it, on one hand I can see a potential, but on
the other hand it seems to slip out of my grasp.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> I am also troubled at the idea of recommending to a person that they
> shouldn't seek an education. Of course anyone can learn to smear paint
> around cleverly if they do it long enough -- but most college experiences are
> much more than that. Often a person finds something else in college to
> pursue, that never would have been a possibility had they not gone to
> college. Well, I like the old axiom: a self-taught artist has a fool for a
> teacher.
Actually, the axiom is that a person representing himself in court has a fool
for a lawyer.
One can take art classes without dropping a hundred thousand dollars on a
college degree.
Recommending that one not go to college is sound advice. Not everyone HAS to
go to college. It should be an option. And if you go to college after
working or diddling around or whatever for a few years, one would appreciate
college a LOT more.
For the price of a college degree one could buy his own art gallery, and thus
be assured that at least one art gallery would be selling his paintings.
That's a MUCH better investment than a college degree.
Regards,
Michael
mike...@my-dejanews.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> Opp, I posted a reply last night but it has evaporated into cyberspace. But
> here's a recap --
...
> Erik Mattila
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
The reply didn't "evaporate", it's just that you posted it via Deja News, and
Deja News has been acting real weird these past few days. I got the response
and already responded to it.
I didn't respond to the part about vocational vs. academic programs. So I
guess I should say something.
Basically, and field of study that is directly related to doing a specific job
is considered vocational. Real academic learning is learning that has no
pecuniary value.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> But I would be really interested in your thoughts about the 'art' issue in
> relation to comp. graphics. I have a lot of trouble resolving this myself --
> the key board and mouse aren't saying 'fine art' to me, or maybe it's more
> generic than that -- how one handles and shapes and struggles with material
> to make art. All that seems to be cut out, by process, in producing and
> image. I'm just at a loss about it, on one hand I can see a potential, but on
> the other hand it seems to slip out of my grasp.
Perhaps one day a computer program will be able to do an oil painting. The
photo program that comes with Microsoft Office does charcoal drawings. With a
little of improvement in the software algorithm and a special printer..
The printer would be like a plotter, but instead of pens it would have
paintbrushes. There would be a relatively small number of pigments stored
under pressure in tanks... the printer/computer program would have just the
right amount of paint come out of the tanks to get just the right color, and
the paintbrush would grab the paint, then swoop down and place a nice stroke
at the right part of the canvas.
It could happen. Think about it. What use for fine artists then?
Regards,
Michael
Kay Kane
mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7b2ptt$3o9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> shouldn't seek an education. Of course anyone can learn to smear paint
>> around cleverly if they do it long enough -- but most college experiences
are
>> much more than that. Often a person finds something else in college to
>> pursue, that never would have been a possibility had they not gone to
>> college. Well, I like the old axiom: a self-taught artist has a fool for
a
>> teacher.
>
fool
>for a lawyer.
>
>One can take art classes without dropping a hundred thousand dollars on a
>college degree.
>
>Recommending that one not go to college is sound advice. Not everyone HAS
to
>go to college. It should be an option. And if you go to college after
>working or diddling around or whatever for a few years, one would
appreciate
>college a LOT more.
>
>For the price of a college degree one could buy his own art gallery, and
thus
>be assured that at least one art gallery would be selling his paintings.
>That's a MUCH better investment than a college degree.
>
>Regards,
>Michael
>
the art are of primary importance to the artist. Showing and selling the
art are secondary. Owning a gallery would involve profit/loss and would
render the artist/owner unable to devote his/her energies to making art as a
priority. Then again (I keep stressing this), there is the issue of
CREDIBILITY... If you have been doing your art for 10, 20, & 30 years or
more you already have your credibility. If you are just entering the field
of 'fine arts' you really need that degree. Just go around to galleries
today with the label "sellf-taught emerging artist" - you'll be shown the
door.
Kay Kane
Kay Kane
mdeli wrote in message <36d45f85...@news.interlog.com>...
> "Kay Kane" wrote:
>
>Well here's a representation from both sides. Let the student decide
>for himself
or herself.
I'm sorry you had such bad experiences. I had wonderful times. You most
likely went to a really, really bad college or (hard as it is to imagine)
had a really, really bad attitude and therefore, really were "unteachable".
My condolences. I will read your book (or site) when I have more time to
concentrate. I will respond privately via e-mail. I have wondered (with no
preconceptions) WHY you would go to all that time to write your views on a
web page. Do you get many visitors? Feedback? Money? Recognition?
Just curious (and still in disagreement),
Kay Kane
Peter H.M. Brooks
scarl...@theriver.com "Kay Kane" writes:
>
> Sounds to me like you don't have a fine arts degree. Knowing the art, doing
> the art are of primary importance to the artist. Showing and selling the
> art are secondary. Owning a gallery would involve profit/loss and would
> render the artist/owner unable to devote his/her energies to making art as a
> priority. Then again (I keep stressing this), there is the issue of
> CREDIBILITY... If you have been doing your art for 10, 20, & 30 years or
> more you already have your credibility. If you are just entering the field
> of 'fine arts' you really need that degree. Just go around to galleries
> today with the label "sellf-taught emerging artist" - you'll be shown the
> door.
> Kay Kane
>
I am sure you are right - particularly about the galleries who want things
that are likely/certain to sell like any other commercial enterprise.
It is a bit sad, though. Since we have heard about the huge cost involved
and the uncertain outcome - many art colleges and universities are still
'teaching' '60's style 'creativity' and no drawing skills - it seems
unfortunate that a piece of expensive but essentially useless paper should
be so important.
After all, what is really important is the quality of the Art. Crap by
a summa com laude student from a highly regarded University with a poor
art department is still crap. An excellent painting by a 'self-taught'
artist is still an excellent painting.
It seems to me that the truth is much as in any other field of endevour.
When you are young and starting out a degree is important. Once you have
established yourself it hardly matters.
Interestingly, in another thread, the question of competitions has been
raised. They do seem to be rip-offs quite often. Still some of the major
well known competitions attract thousands of entries - many of an
extremely high standard. So it is common to see artists puff including
a list of competitions as the major selling point rather than their
education.
One other amusing method of getting this credibility that I encountered
the other day was to donate paintings to the local museum. Since they
are donations, the museum can hardly refuse them, and is likely to
hang them somewhere inconspicuous. Once they are there, the artist
can put 'hung in the Bristol Royal Art Gallery' or somesuch, and
sound very impressive.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
-N.
Its just gonna have to get sexier, thats all there is to it.
And it will. It is still in its infancy, it is still defined by it's roots
and their paradigm...I mean the whole enchilada will transform: the
implementation of the technology, the access to it, who it serves and
why...maybe the internet will have a larger indirect impact on computers
than we can forsee, part of a democratization: the silly shit that goes
down in sites like this, the mindless roving surf void of the dregs of
human morbidity and depression (like spending ones days engrossed in the
coupon section of the Sunday news). Maybe a great unloosening is due,
maybe we need to de-privilige and smear this sacrosant technology through
the mud and shit, before it is wrested from the determinacy of it's
inception. Perhaps, in time, it will become so completely soiled with the
stink of the human, our emotions, our unwashed desires, our libido, that
we will find ourselves relating to it differently, conceiving it
differently, and incorporating it back into that sloppy hive of human
funk...and there it will sit, alongside the rest of our naturalized tools
of matrixed desire...the descent to the 'volk'; no longer reeking of the
distant precints of technocratic legerdomain from which it sprung forth.
Indeed, it wasn't science that created the computer in the first
place...it was human desire.
Anyway, I've got to boogie, I'll try to respond to your meats and potatoes
when I clock in next.
-N.
>
> It could happen. Think about it. What use for fine artists then?
I had an art teacher, an oil painter, that used to like saying,"If all of
a sudden, oil painting were to completely vanish for good from the face of
the earth, the only ones who would suffer, would be Windsor & Newton'. His
point being that human imagination would find other ways to express
itself.
-N.
<scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
Then again (I keep stressing this), there is the issue of
> CREDIBILITY... If you have been doing your art for 10, 20, & 30 years or
> more you already have your credibility. If you are just entering the field
> of 'fine arts' you really need that degree. Just go around to galleries
> today with the label "sellf-taught emerging artist" - you'll be shown the
> door.
With all due respect to ALL variety of degree holders: if you walked into
a gallery with the lable: 'mud purple stink finger dialogist', and had a
sheet of ROCKIN'(!) slides, I don't think they would much care WHO your
daddy is.
Late,
Marilyn
>
> In article <kJ6B2.11731$yv3....@news2.giganews.com>
> scarl...@theriver.com "Kay Kane" writes:
>
> >
> > Sounds to me like you don't have a fine arts degree. Knowing the art, doing
> > the art are of primary importance to the artist. Showing and selling the
> > art are secondary. Owning a gallery would involve profit/loss and would
> > render the artist/owner unable to devote his/her energies to making art as a
> > CREDIBILITY... If you have been doing your art for 10, 20, & 30 years or
> > more you already have your credibility. If you are just entering the field
> > of 'fine arts' you really need that degree. Just go around to galleries
> > today with the label "sellf-taught emerging artist" - you'll be shown the
> > door.
While universities turn their attention to computer science courses,
there are small colleges which are actually thriving because they
are getting the art students. So as usually happens, there is an
underground, paralell history going on which will preserve art education.
The image of the monks in medieval times comes to my mind.
As for "artists' puff" I love that expression.
Students are taught to sell themselves with new courses on business
skills for artists. They are taught to count a description of their
exhibition as a "review" - a goverment grant is listed as an "award."
One of the rewards of the fine arts degree is meeting other artists.
These colleagues are the best support for an artist during the rest of
his/her lifetime. The other rewards are exposure to equipment,
great libraries, cheap art supplies at campus' stores, having shows on campus.
I would also say meeting and receiving encouragement from instructors
who are working artists and this seems to be the controversial point.
I say all this as a Canadian where post secondary education is much cheaper.
(It is attracting quite a few Americans who cannot afford it, in their own
country). Come on up, we'll teach you socialism, too! : )
M.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> As for "artists' puff" I love that expression.
> Students are taught to sell themselves with new courses on business
> skills for artists. They are taught to count a description of their
> exhibition as a "review" - a goverment grant is listed as an "award."
>
I have noticed! I am afraid that, for me at any rate, that sort of
thing stands out a mile, as do the petentious descriptions. I am
most attracted to simple no-nonsense concentration on the art -
long lists of credentials leave me wondering what all the other people
saw in the stuff, rather than just seeing it.
>
>One of the rewards of the fine arts degree is meeting other artists.
>These colleagues are the best support for an artist during the rest of
>his/her lifetime. The other rewards are exposure to equipment,
>great libraries, cheap art supplies at campus' stores, having shows on campus.
>I would also say meeting and receiving encouragement from instructors
>who are working artists and this seems to be the controversial point.
>I say all this as a Canadian where post secondary education is much cheaper.
>(It is attracting quite a few Americans who cannot afford it, in their own
>country). Come on up, we'll teach you socialism, too! : )
>
Many people find their university 'old boy' friends very useful in later
live, I am not sure if it is just an artist thing.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Kay Kane
-N. wrote in message ...
>> CREDIBILITY... If you have been doing your art for 10, 20, & 30 years or
>> more you already have your credibility. If you are just entering the
field
>> of 'fine arts' you really need that degree. Just go around to galleries
>> today with the label "sellf-taught emerging artist" - you'll be shown the
>> door.
>
>a gallery with the lable: 'mud purple stink finger dialogist', and had a
>sheet of ROCKIN'(!) slides, I don't think they would much care WHO your
>daddy is.
>
>Late,
>-N.
>
>--
>N
>To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
>
since they hardly ever get to see any! Are you kidding? Viewing procedure:
hold slide up to natural light source (do you think they bring out the
projector each time) mumble something positive, promise to get back to them,
toss slides in bottom drawer on top of other discards - those are the
galleries that are CIVIL. I got my gallery through an introduction, through
"networking, through school ties. Plus, most of the time, if you walk in
cold, you are showing your slides to someone who is an employee (and likely
an aspiring artist themselves). Besides, I always carry color PRINTS in
addition to slides, so people can actually get an idea of what the work
looks like. I didn't know NYC was so friendly, so receptive!
Kay Kane
mike...@my-dejanews.com
> Sounds to me like you don't have a fine arts degree.
Correct
> Knowing the art, doing
> the art are of primary importance to the artist. Showing and selling the
> art are secondary.
Maybe, but the topic of the subject is whether the fine arts degree is
COMMERCIALLY VIABLE.
> Owning a gallery would involve profit/loss and would
> render the artist/owner unable to devote his/her energies to making art as a
> priority.
But it would be a great education in the economics of art... way better than
what one could obtain at college.
> Then again (I keep stressing this), there is the issue of
> CREDIBILITY... If you have been doing your art for 10, 20, & 30 years or
> more you already have your credibility. If you are just entering the field
> of 'fine arts' you really need that degree. Just go around to galleries
> today with the label "sellf-taught emerging artist" - you'll be shown the
> door.
Here is where you contradict yourself. If getting your works to hang in a
gallery is your goal, then using $100,000 to buy a gallery instead of using it
to buy a pretty useless degree in fine arts makes a lot more sense.
Also, I find it hard to believe that much weight is given to an artist's
degree. When evaluating a painting, the quality of the painting should speak
for itself.
I worked in in art gallery once for a few weeks. Of the many customers who
came in, NOT A SINGLE ONE ever asked if any of the artists had art degrees.
And if they did, I wouldn't even have known the answer to the question. It
just wasn't an issue.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
> It seems to me that the truth is much as in any other field of endevour.
> When you are young and starting out a degree is important. Once you have
> established yourself it hardly matters.
When a company is looking to hire a full time employee, a degree gives a
"comfort factor" that the potential employee will be able to do the job.
But artists don't get hired for full time jobs. They want to consign their
finished works to galleries. The finished works speak for themselves. Thus
the degree has much less significance.
Regards,
Michael
mike...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> The other rewards are exposure to equipment,
> great libraries, cheap art supplies at campus' stores
Where I live, the library at the local state university is open to the public,
no need to be a student.
I've bought art supplies at the very store that students buy their art
supplies from. The price's aren't that great. In any event, art supplies
don't cost that much.
And you don't need that much equipment, just paint, brushes, and an easel.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> Yes "N" - gallery directors are THRILLED when they get to see new slides
> since they hardly ever get to see any! Are you kidding? Viewing procedure:
> hold slide up to natural light source (do you think they bring out the
> projector each time) mumble something positive, promise to get back to them,
> toss slides in bottom drawer on top of other discards - those are the
> galleries that are CIVIL. I got my gallery through an introduction, through
> "networking, through school ties. Plus, most of the time, if you walk in
> cold, you are showing your slides to someone who is an employee (and likely
> an aspiring artist themselves).
My previous suggestion that $100,000 spent on college would be better spent
buying your own art gallery is sounding better and better, don't you think?
Ariane
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, mdeli wrote:
> From: mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: how commercially viable is a fine arts degree ?
>
> "Kay Kane" wrote:
> >I'm sorry you had such bad experiences. I had wonderful times. You most
> >likely went to a really, really bad college or (hard as it is to imagine)
> >had a really, really bad attitude and therefore, really were "unteachable".
> >My condolences.
>
> Thanks for the patronizing condolences.
>
> As to art school I attended several in the big bad city NYC during fun
> times. The first one I attended was a tuition free artsy-fartzy
> academy, although I didn't learn much there I had a great time. Great
> sex, nice parties and companionship. You see, I loved to hang around
> artzy-fartzies. They are such a relief from all those rod-up-the-ass
> squares. The second school really taught me something.
=== Unfortunately the only good thing about art in NYC is all the works
brought over from Europe.
> I went to art school almost always tuition free on scholarships.
> I sold my work because I learned technique and drawing. In my final
> year I won a grant to study in Europe. One of the award jurors who
> gave me his vote for a big schmier I did, was the fuhrer of modern
> academic art at the time, Clement Greenberg.
=== Did you actually go?
> It might also interest some here to know that I also attended
> university. I majored in chemistry and biology before studying art. I
> found it far more helpful than art school. Science makes you fairly
> bullshit proof.
=== Yeah because it teaches you how to pass off bullshit as truth.
} Sience is the antithesis of bullshit
=== Its also the antithesis of free thought and unbridled creativity.
Actually Mani, science is little more than an methodological
exercise in intellectual conformity. In that sense, science is pure
bullshit.
} and it teaches
> you to think rationally about technique in art and the world of
> knowledge. .
>
=== Rationality has its limits. Birth, death, love & art being four of
them. And the `world of knowledge' is a little bigger than science and
rationality. It also contains their negation as Sartre pointed out.
> While in university I also attended art history lectures and talked my
> way into drawing classes and other courses. I could even have done so
> without ever enrolling in school at all. Well you'll never get your
> MFA that way. However if your insecure and really feel you need one,
> xerox one from a friend and change the name.
=== I knew someone who did this for a job. It worked. But they missed
out on the learning, the contacts, the friends, and the experience of
having to work your derriere off to achieve something. Would you
recommend this `easy way out' to your kids? Probably.
> > I will read your book (or site) when I have more time to
> >concentrate. I will respond privately via e-mail. I have wondered (with no
> >preconceptions) WHY you would go to all that time to write your views on a
> >web page. Do you get many visitors? Feedback? Money? Recognition?
> >Just curious (and still in disagreement),
> >Kay Kane
>
> You can read the number of visitors on the first page. I write here
> and on my web page for the same reason you do. Its fun.
=== Absolutely,
Art has always
> been good to me and I'm not too interested in recognition. I never had
> a job and when necessary, I could always out-bullshit other artzy
> fartzies. I'm well versed in Artspeak.
=== But you won't get far with someone who actually knows what they're
doing & talking about. Hard work and intellectual honesty will get you a
hell of a lot farther than posing at parties with an art dictionary in
your pocket. But then again, you might have missed that lecture.
a la prochaine,
A.
> Mani DeLi
> ...secretly worships Picasso
Kay Kane
that it is not asked, but it is usually ebident in the work - it is assumed.
We forever disagree...
Kay Kane
mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7b4ae8$fcl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <kJ6B2.11731$yv3....@news2.giganews.com>,
Kay Kane
I disagree with almost everything you say, but I enjoy very much the way you
say it. You have a delicious sense of humor and satire!
Kay Kane
P.S. Never been a disciple of Clement Greenberg, There have always been
others (even though he was the god of art theory for quite a while). I
don't always write here for "fun" as you say. Often, I write here more for
"procrastination" purposes. Also, while in one of those "artsy-fartsy"
schools, we, as students, were told countless times that 95% of us wouldn't
be making art after 5 years. I still am, but, I think the figure is higher
than that, so, I read & write here because most of my friends have quit art
and there is quite a bit of artistic stimulation here. Again, I enjoy your
wit!
mdeli wrote in message <36d5f4e3...@news.interlog.com>...
> "Kay Kane" wrote:
>>I'm sorry you had such bad experiences. I had wonderful times. You most
>>likely went to a really, really bad college or (hard as it is to imagine)
>>had a really, really bad attitude and therefore, really were
"unteachable".
>>My condolences.
>
>
>As to art school I attended several in the big bad city NYC during fun
>times. The first one I attended was a tuition free artsy-fartzy
>academy, although I didn't learn much there I had a great time. Great
>sex, nice parties and companionship. You see, I loved to hang around
>artzy-fartzies. They are such a relief from all those rod-up-the-ass
>squares. The second school really taught me something.
>
>I sold my work because I learned technique and drawing. In my final
>year I won a grant to study in Europe. One of the award jurors who
>gave me his vote for a big schmier I did, was the fuhrer of modern
>academic art at the time, Clement Greenberg.
>
>university. I majored in chemistry and biology before studying art. I
>found it far more helpful than art school. Science makes you fairly
>you to think rationally about technique in art and the world of
>knowledge. .
>
>way into drawing classes and other courses. I could even have done so
>without ever enrolling in school at all. Well you'll never get your
>MFA that way. However if your insecure and really feel you need one,
>xerox one from a friend and change the name.
>
>>concentrate. I will respond privately via e-mail. I have wondered (with
no
>>preconceptions) WHY you would go to all that time to write your views on a
>>web page. Do you get many visitors? Feedback? Money? Recognition?
>>Just curious (and still in disagreement),
>>Kay Kane
>
>been good to me and I'm not too interested in recognition. I never had
>a job and when necessary, I could always out-bullshit other artzy
>fartzies. I'm well versed in Artspeak.
>
Marilyn
>
> In article <36D549...@bc.ca>,
> Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
>
> > The other rewards are exposure to equipment,
> > great libraries, cheap art supplies at campus' stores
>
> Where I live, the library at the local state university is open to the public,
> no need to be a student.
>
> I've bought art supplies at the very store that students buy their art
> supplies from. The price's aren't that great. In any event, art supplies
> don't cost that much.
>
> And you don't need that much equipment, just paint, brushes, and an easel.
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Guess you never heard of computers, photography, printing,
canon laser copiers for designers which take art paper,
on & on.
M>
Marilyn
>
> -N. wrote in message ...
> >In article <kJ6B2.11731$yv3....@news2.giganews.com>, "Kay Kane"
> ><scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> >
> > Then again (I keep stressing this), there is the issue of
> >> CREDIBILITY... If you have been doing your art for 10, 20, & 30 years or
> >> more you already have your credibility. If you are just entering the
> field
> >> of 'fine arts' you really need that degree. Just go around to galleries
> >> today with the label "sellf-taught emerging artist" - you'll be shown the
> >> door.
> >
> >a gallery with the lable: 'mud purple stink finger dialogist', and had a
> >sheet of ROCKIN'(!) slides, I don't think they would much care WHO your
> >daddy is.
> >
> >Late,
> >-N.
> >
> >--
> >N
> >To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
> >
> since they hardly ever get to see any! Are you kidding? Viewing procedure:
> hold slide up to natural light source (do you think they bring out the
> projector each time) mumble something positive, promise to get back to them,
> toss slides in bottom drawer on top of other discards - those are the
> galleries that are CIVIL. I got my gallery through an introduction, through
> "networking, through school ties. Plus, most of the time, if you walk in
> cold, you are showing your slides to someone who is an employee (and likely
> addition to slides, so people can actually get an idea of what the work
> looks like. I didn't know NYC was so friendly, so receptive!
> Kay Kane
And you feel so lucky if they take the slides out of the plastic sheet
before holding them up to a dirty window, or yellow tungsten light.
Amanda Koh
so can we all get back to discussing the viability of a fine arts degree
instead of bickering about which place one can consider the mecca of art ???
would appreciate that
thanks !
Amanda
mdeli
> If you are just entering the field
>of 'fine arts' you really need that degree. Just go around to galleries
>today with the label "sellf-taught emerging artist" - you'll be shown the
>door.
Total baloney.
No one asked me about a degree in my long lifetime.
If you can produce fine artwork and someone has the effrontery to ask
whether you have a degree, name three prestigious art academies for
the idiot and tell him you have degrees from all of them.
The only thing that counts in the outside world is your work.
However, if its an academic teaching job you want than you need to be
a first rate AK with a degree and a lot of bullshit back up. In that
case your work doesn't count for much.
mdeli
>I'm sorry you had such bad experiences. I had wonderful times. You most
>likely went to a really, really bad college or (hard as it is to imagine)
>had a really, really bad attitude and therefore, really were "unteachable".
>My condolences.
Thanks for the patronizing condolences.
As to art school I attended several in the big bad city NYC during fun
times. The first one I attended was a tuition free artsy-fartzy
academy, although I didn't learn much there I had a great time. Great
sex, nice parties and companionship. You see, I loved to hang around
artzy-fartzies. They are such a relief from all those rod-up-the-ass
squares. The second school really taught me something.
I went to art school almost always tuition free on scholarships.
I sold my work because I learned technique and drawing. In my final
year I won a grant to study in Europe. One of the award jurors who
gave me his vote for a big schmier I did, was the fuhrer of modern
academic art at the time, Clement Greenberg.
It might also interest some here to know that I also attended
university. I majored in chemistry and biology before studying art. I
found it far more helpful than art school. Science makes you fairly
bullshit proof. Sience is the antithesis of bullshit and it teaches
you to think rationally about technique in art and the world of
knowledge. .
While in university I also attended art history lectures and talked my
way into drawing classes and other courses. I could even have done so
without ever enrolling in school at all. Well you'll never get your
MFA that way. However if your insecure and really feel you need one,
xerox one from a friend and change the name.
> I will read your book (or site) when I have more time to
>concentrate. I will respond privately via e-mail. I have wondered (with no
>preconceptions) WHY you would go to all that time to write your views on a
>web page. Do you get many visitors? Feedback? Money? Recognition?
>Just curious (and still in disagreement),
>Kay Kane
You can read the number of visitors on the first page. I write here
and on my web page for the same reason you do. Its fun. Art has always
been good to me and I'm not too interested in recognition. I never had
a job and when necessary, I could always out-bullshit other artzy
fartzies. I'm well versed in Artspeak.
Mani DeLi
mdeli
>Students are taught to sell themselves with new courses on business
>skills for artists.
Who have you sold yourself to lately?
>One of the rewards of the fine arts degree is meeting other artists. These colleagues are the best support for an artist during the rest of
>his/her lifetime.
Oh boy, meeting other artists. Try NYC, almost everyone you meet will
be an artist. Big deal.
>The other rewards are exposure to equipment,
>great libraries, cheap art supplies at campus' stores, having shows on campus.
You can get a room in any university town and have the same advantages
without having to shell out any money .
>I would also say meeting and receiving encouragement from instructors
>who are working artists and this seems to be the controversial point.
Most instructors in academia are failures who can't find better work.
With good reason!
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7b2br2$ol0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> > Opp, I posted a reply last night but it has evaporated into cyberspace. But
> > here's a recap --
>
> ...
>
> > Erik Mattila
> >
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
> Deja News has been acting real weird these past few days. I got the response
> and already responded to it.
>
> I didn't respond to the part about vocational vs. academic programs. So I
> guess I should say something.
>
> Basically, and field of study that is directly related to doing a specific job
> is considered vocational. Real academic learning is learning that has no
> pecuniary value.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
So if I get a PhD in astrophysics or organic chemistry from Rutgers I will
have earned a vocational degree? I think you better check with your regional
college accreditation association -- they will answer your telephone call.
At any rate, if that is your belief, I can certainly undertand why you would
hold that an art degree is worthless. Can't agrue with that!
best,
Erik
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7b0jht$9eu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> > I am also troubled at the idea of recommending to a person that they
> > shouldn't seek an education. Of course anyone can learn to smear paint
> > around cleverly if they do it long enough -- but most college experiences are
> > much more than that. Often a person finds something else in college to
> > pursue, that never would have been a possibility had they not gone to
> > college. Well, I like the old axiom: a self-taught artist has a fool for a
> > teacher.
>
> Actually, the axiom is that a person representing himself in court has a fool
> for a lawyer.
Really? My source must have lied to me.
>
> One can take art classes without dropping a hundred thousand dollars on a
> college degree.
Yes, I was a fan of Alexander, and more a fan of Bob Ross. I got my BA in
art studio and it cost me around 5 grand in books and tuition (but it only
took me two years). The faculty at UC Davis were all "working artists," in
other words the art faculty was under the same sort of 'publish or perish'
onus that is common liberal arts faculty nationwide. Some of the faculty
sold paintings in six figures, in fact. And I also learned much about
painting, even though I had painted and worked in graphics for twenty five
years before I attended this program.
>
> Recommending that one not go to college is sound advice. Not everyone HAS to
> go to college. It should be an option. And if you go to college after
> working or diddling around or whatever for a few years, one would appreciate
> college a LOT more.
No, not everyone has to go to college. The opportunity to go to college is
generally called 'upward mobility' and there is no law that says a person has
to enhance their job skills or vocational opportunities.
>
> For the price of a college degree one could buy his own art gallery, and thus
> be assured that at least one art gallery would be selling his paintings.
> That's a MUCH better investment than a college degree.
Operating an Art Gallery is pretty much of a full time job that requires many
skills that are not related to making art. I don't think this is a reasonable
proposition at all.
I would say to anyone who may be reading this that is considering highter
education: "Don't listen to this Guy!" He's shelling out incredibly poor
advice.
No offense, Mike. I just think you may be playing out some biographical
melodrama here -- perhaps some disappointment in you life, who knows?
emat...@tomatoweb.com
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
Well look at Pop Art -- it came to us fresh and clean, almost sparkling like
a can of Komet Kleanser with a subliminal warning (until Andy started playing
around with the crash images). But you're talking about marginalization, or
at least that's what I'm reading. You may be right -- computers are just too
mainstream right now. But look what pop culure has done with the imagery of
high-tech w/ spiderwebs and grit (we could now make a shopping list starting
with Heavey Metal comix, on to Road Warrior, on to 12 Monkeys, on to etc.
etc.)
What's chugging around in my head after reading your post is Georges
Bataille's 'Psychological Theory of Fascism," specifically his argument for a
fascist indicator being when the heterogeneous elements culture became
homogeneous via a vehicle of 'campiness.' So, when it becomes acceptable,
amusing and entertaining to pander pornography at high-class coctail parties,
society is in a tailspin to hell. Bataille's only fun, it seems, was in
keeping his pornography 'out of culture' since it was the only way he could
give meaning to his perversions, and think of himself as a constructive force
in culture. But Bataille must have felt the only way culture could
understand any sort of 'goodness' was in having the anti-good available as an
example, even if this disintegrating force was kept below the visible. How
else can culture define itself? That's probably why Andre Breton hated
Bataille, and thought he was 'dirty minded.' Breton probably regarded himself
as a subversive, and subsequently behaved nicely and helped culture lose any
possibility of understanding itself. Have you noticed, btw, how absolutely
shallow, uninformed, and superficial the modern understanding of the term
'surrealsim' is?
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>
> Most instructors in academia are failures who can't find better work.
> With good reason!
>
This is an ancient view, there is even a bit of doggerel to go with it:
Those that can, do,
Those that can't teach,
Those that can't teach, teach teachers,
Those that can't teach teachers become educational inspectors.
It is obviously true in many cases. However there are teachers who teach
because they love teaching (I am one, and I come from a family of teachers).
If you are that sort of person the excitement the delight and the adrenaline
buzz of actually getting people to learn, understand and make the best they
can of themselves is very hard to beat. You don't teach because you are
altruistic, you teach because it is like having legal drugs.
Well, I may have overstated the case a little here, but I am passionate
about teaching, there are very few things that I enjoy more. When you
meet a teacher who feels this way, then you will (if you get on with
the teacher) learn and enjoy the process.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca "Ariane" writes:
>
> } Sience is the antithesis of bullshit
>
> === Its also the antithesis of free thought and unbridled creativity.
> Actually Mani, science is little more than an methodological
> exercise in intellectual conformity. In that sense, science is pure
> bullshit.
>
I have to disagree with you. I also have a science degree (in physics and
maths for the record). My brother had a degree in philosophy. What we, in
later life, found was that both our degrees had taught us one very important
lesson, which was how to think.
I don't remember much of the detail that I learned over twenty years ago,
but the way of approaching and analyzing a problem is more than just
a 'methodological exercise' it is a working 'mindset' (in the new hey-wow
jargon) to solving problems - it helps in working out your tax return,
mending the washing machine and advising your daughter on how to deal
with her currrent crisis. Mani is right it is a good bullshit detector
too.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
mike...@my-dejanews.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> So if I get a PhD in astrophysics or organic chemistry from Rutgers I will
> have earned a vocational degree? I think you better check with your regional
> college accreditation association -- they will answer your telephone call.
The only purpose of a PhD is to become a college professor. PhD degrees are
by their very nature the very opposite of vocational.
Engineering is more of a "vocational" degree, and thus is somewhat looked down
about by the elitist academicians. But it's so difficult to learn that it's
accepted as a legitimate area of study at the major universities.
> At any rate, if that is your belief, I can certainly undertand why you would
> hold that an art degree is worthless. Can't agrue with that!
Yes, I very strongly feel that there's too much emphasis on formal education.
At the same time, an art degree opens up no job opportunities.
Regards,
Michael
mike...@my-dejanews.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> Also, while in one of those "artsy-fartsy"
> schools, we, as students, were told countless times that 95% of us wouldn't
> be making art after 5 years. I still am, but, I think the figure is higher
> than that, so, I read & write here because most of my friends have quit art
That's worth repeating again. It sureley speaks to the uselessness of the
degree. I glad you got a lot out of your education, but surely you must admit
that the other 95% would have been economically better off with a different
major.
Ariane
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> From: "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: how commercially viable is a fine arts degree ?
>
=== There are many ways of approaching and analyzing life. Science is
monotheistic in the sense that it purports to be THE means of discovering
certain truth about the world. It is valuable, but it must take its place
alongside other forms of knowing and understanding. While I agree that it
is a good way to approach and analyze certain `analytically amenable'
situations (building bridges, fixing cars, killing thousands of people at
once). It is less `a good bullshit detector' than it is a METHOD of
discovering facts about the world which are accessible to the 5 senses. A
better bullshit detector is a critical intellect, one that is as critical
of the scientific method posing as `the world of knowledge,' as it is of
those things which science has claimed to have debunked.
Back to art however, a scientific background may or may not be
useful. It depends on the individual and how she or he can incorporate
their self into their work. My father was a furniture refinisher and my
familiarity with his slow deliberate methodical way of working helps me
all the time in my own studio. A scientific `mindset' is efficient,
granted, but there are thousands of other `mindsets' out there which,
although less efficient, and less analytical, are still much more
interesting, profound, and beautiful. And that is precisely what I'd like
to see more of in art.
a la prochaine,
A.
Peter H.M. Brooks
da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca "Ariane" writes:
>
> Back to art however, a scientific background may or may not be
> useful. It depends on the individual and how she or he can incorporate
> their self into their work. My father was a furniture refinisher and my
> familiarity with his slow deliberate methodical way of working helps me
> all the time in my own studio. A scientific `mindset' is efficient,
> granted, but there are thousands of other `mindsets' out there which,
> although less efficient, and less analytical, are still much more
> interesting, profound, and beautiful. And that is precisely what I'd like
> to see more of in art.
>
The last thing I would suggest would be that art requires a scientific
background!!
Actually science and, in particular, mathematics have an intrinsic beauty
that definately appeals to the aesthetic sense. Sadly it can only be
seen after a few years study, but I think, for me, it was certainly
worth it.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Kay Kane
mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7b6j7b$efn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <DuoB2.15242$yv3....@news2.giganews.com>,
> "Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, while in one of those "artsy-fartsy"
>> schools, we, as students, were told countless times that 95% of us
wouldn't
>> be making art after 5 years. I still am, but, I think the figure is
higher
>> than that, so, I read & write here because most of my friends have quit
art
>
>That's worth repeating again. It sureley speaks to the uselessness of the
>degree. I glad you got a lot out of your education, but surely you must
admit
>that the other 95% would have been economically better off with a different
>major.
>
>Regards,
>Michael
No, Michael...what it means is that you probably won't be doing art 5 years
from now and this ng will keep some old members, but, most will drift away.
Hoe long has 'rec,arts.fine' been active?
Kay
Ariane
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> From: "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: how commercially viable is a fine arts degree ?
>
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.990226...@alcor.concordia.ca>
> da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca "Ariane" writes:
>
> >
> > Back to art however, a scientific background may or may not be
> > useful. It depends on the individual and how she or he can incorporate
> > their self into their work. My father was a furniture refinisher and my
> > familiarity with his slow deliberate methodical way of working helps me
> > all the time in my own studio. A scientific `mindset' is efficient,
> > granted, but there are thousands of other `mindsets' out there which,
> > although less efficient, and less analytical, are still much more
> > interesting, profound, and beautiful. And that is precisely what I'd like
> > to see more of in art.
> >
> The last thing I would suggest would be that art requires a scientific
> background!!
=== Sorry, my point was made half in answer to Mani, and half in answer to
your defence of his position. I didn't mean to imply that you thought
this.
> Actually science and, in particular, mathematics have an intrinsic beauty
> that definately appeals to the aesthetic sense. Sadly it can only be
> seen after a few years study, but I think, for me, it was certainly
> worth it.
>
> --
> Peter H.M. Brooks
=== Yes, I remember Bertrand Russell stating something to this effect.
The speculative `string theory' in physics is supposed to be elegant and
quite beautiful. Alas for the uninitiated. I am bound to seek beauty in
much more mundane milieux.
a bientot,
A.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> Yes, I was a fan of Alexander, and more a fan of Bob Ross.
Is that Alexander Calder the guy who makes those funny mobiles? Just kidding.
> I got my BA in
> art studio and it cost me around 5 grand in books and tuition (but it only
> took me two years). The faculty at UC Davis were all "working artists," in
> other words the art faculty was under the same sort of 'publish or perish'
> onus that is common liberal arts faculty nationwide. Some of the faculty
> sold paintings in six figures, in fact. And I also learned much about
> painting, even though I had painted and worked in graphics for twenty five
> years before I attended this program.
Sounds like a reasonably good deal. That was Mr. Mani Deli who said that ALL
art schools were lousy.
> No, not everyone has to go to college. The opportunity to go to
college is
> generally called 'upward mobility' and there is no law that says a person has
> to enhance their job skills or vocational opportunities.
You've bought into the idea that upward mobilitiy can only be attained with a
college degree. Since everyone THINKS that is the gospel truth, almost
everyone who is "upwardly mobile" goes to college. But it's not really a
necessity.
$100,000 it costs to obtain a degree at a private university would be better
invested in the business of your choice.
> Operating an Art Gallery is pretty much of a full time job that requires many
> skills that are not related to making art. I don't think this is a reasonable
> proposition at all.
Sounds reasonable to me. No one said knowledge came easy. After operating
the gallery, one would have a REALLY good idea about how one sells art. It
would be tremendously beneficial if what one wanted to do was to sell art.
I wonder, actually, how galleries make money. They're always empty, and i've
never seen anyone buy anything in them. I guess when the merchandise is so
expensive, you don't have to make many sales in order to stay in business.
> I would say to anyone who may be reading this that is considering highter
> education: "Don't listen to this Guy!" He's shelling out incredibly poor
> advice.
Au contraire, it's great advice that one should THINK about the alternatives
instead of just blindly following the herd into college.
And yes, I WAS offended by the last comment which I won't bother to quote.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
instead of just blindly following the herd into college. Isn't being creative
about being able to think for oneself instead of letting others think for you?
mike...@my-dejanews.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> No, Michael...what it means is that you probably won't be doing art 5 years
> from now and this ng will keep some old members, but, most will drift away.
Ya, I tend to lose interest in my hobbies pretty quickly. But all I've done
is spend a few hundred dollars, and I've had fun, so no harm done at all.
Going to college is something entirely different. Taking off 4 years from
your life and going into debt and having your parents shell out large amounts
of money. It should be approached with a lot more thought than it is. "Oh
yeah, I'll spend 4 years and $100,000 and I don't even know what I want to do
with my life!"
John Sargent, the last great painter, didn't have any degrees. He went to art
school in Paris for a while, but it didn't last that long.
It might also be noted that John Sargent had rich parents who could afford to
indulge his artistic talents.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
<snipped>
> > I would say to anyone who may be reading this that is considering highter
> > education: "Don't listen to this Guy!" He's shelling out incredibly poor
> > advice.
>
> Au contraire, it's great advice that one should THINK about the alternatives
> instead of just blindly following the herd into college. Isn't being creative
> about being able to think for oneself instead of letting others think for you?
>
> And yes, I WAS offended by the last comment which I won't bother to quote.
>
In that case I'll back-off my high-horse and apologise for attempting to
personalize it. But if it's any consolation to you, I do that all the time
-- and I am probably doing it in this little discussion. It's important for
me to say -- go to college -- for some reason, much of which probably isn't
totally objective.
Erik
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7b5abm$bsi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> > Yes, I was a fan of Alexander, and more a fan of Bob Ross.
>
> Is that Alexander Calder the guy who makes those funny mobiles? Just kidding.
Him too, as a matter of fact.
>
> Sounds like a reasonably good deal. That was Mr. Mani Deli who said that ALL
> art schools were lousy.
> You've bought into the idea that upward mobilitiy can only be attained with a
> college degree. Since everyone THINKS that is the gospel truth, almost
> everyone who is "upwardly mobile" goes to college. But it's not really a
> necessity.
>
Agreed. The unitary premise is always suspect.
>
> I wonder, actually, how galleries make money. They're always empty, and i've
> never seen anyone buy anything in them. I guess when the merchandise is so
> expensive, you don't have to make many sales in order to stay in business.
>
I posted some info on this drawn from my experience a few weeks ago.
Basically, a friend who operated a gallery in Sacramento told me how he
operated. The storefront, openings, and display were more or less only the
'front-end' of the business. He told me it was rare to sell a painting out
of the store, or at an opening. His tool was the telephone and a roster of
'collectors' who resided within his marketing range (which I believe was very
broad). So it was telephone work "Hello, Mrs. So and so, I have this new
artist who is so good, and she must be included in your collection..." along
those lines. You can imagine the overhead is high, including the time it
takes to make a sale, plus you must at least be able to come across as
knowledge in the areas that collectors are interested in.
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Perhaps one day a computer program will be able to do an oil painting. The
> photo program that comes with Microsoft Office does charcoal drawings. With a
> little of improvement in the software algorithm and a special printer..
>
> The printer would be like a plotter, but instead of pens it would have
> paintbrushes. There would be a relatively small number of pigments stored
> under pressure in tanks... the printer/computer program would have just the
> right amount of paint come out of the tanks to get just the right color, and
> the paintbrush would grab the paint, then swoop down and place a nice stroke
> at the right part of the canvas.
>
> It could happen. Think about it. What use for fine artists then?
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
There was an old movie like that. I can't remember the title, but it was
with Shirley McLain, Gene Kelly, Paul Neuman -- about a women whose husband
died every time she married a man. Paul Neuman was an artist living in Paris
who had built a machine with Rube Goldberg arms and paint brushes etc. Great
fun...
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Not an overstatement in my view. But I would like to add that there are many
artists who can't teach art, since it requires a 'transference' of knowledge.
One may be very diligent in rendering a walnut shell in exquisite detail, but
quite unaware about 'how' it is done, since the act of doing it is a
different kind of mental activity than the modes of representation we may
devise to teach another.
Subsequently, there are many artists who like to teach for that very reason --
one cannot teach successfully without learning the material themselves.
But wouldn't our human world be delightful if it's complexities were reduced
to the simplistic polarity of 'success vs. failure' (the guiding
pseudo-ideology of the 1980's "Me Generation")?