Re: Decline of Art Education
artangel
And HOW those uneducated uppish pipsqueaks can re-think, develop and
improve a thing in so complex matters as Visual Arts or Architecture ?
Uneducated uppish pipsqueaks are incapable of improving a thing as
complex as the Visual Arts and Architecture. They have closed minds
and only look for the negitive in everything. Does this sound
familiar?
they are quite dumb and were too reluctant to learn, study, read,
think?
Autobiography perhaps?
I really dont understand where all this anger comes from. Yes, of
course there is a lot to dismiss in todays' art. This is true of any
age. But the insistance that there is nothing worth exploring is just
absurd.
Andrew D
"artangel" <cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
> And HOW those uneducated uppish pipsqueaks can re-think, develop and
> improve a thing in so complex matters as Visual Arts or Architecture ?
> Uneducated uppish pipsqueaks are incapable of improving a thing as
> complex as the Visual Arts and Architecture. They have closed minds
> and only look for the negitive in everything. Does this sound
> familiar?
If Architects learned their craft the same way many college visual artists
learn theirs, we'd all be too scared to enter modern buildings. It would
be a case of "Johnny, don't worry about stability, structure or
accessibility, just let your emotions guide you in designing that 20
storey building... Be different!"
--
Andy D.
artangel
So what?
There are also bad architecture school graduates Lets focus on them
and make them the the standard. Now we have a reason to dismiss all of
contemporary architecture.
The point is this:
Those who dismiss the past in the arts are stupid.
Those who dismiss everything but the past in the arts are just as
stupid.
Seen anthing new and exciting lately?
chris
Andrew D wrote:
> If Architects learned their craft the same way many college visual artists
> learn theirs, we'd all be too scared to enter modern buildings. It would
> be a case of "Johnny, don't worry about stability, structure or
> accessibility, just let your emotions guide you in designing that 20
> storey building... Be different!"
>
Top architects aren't necessarily particularly concerned with
structural engineering, or even "human factors". There's people they
hire to look after that sort of thing. Not that I have a lot of
sympathy with most modern architecture, it generally suffers from the
same shallow, bombastic and inhumane POV as modern art. Maybe you need
a better example :)
artangel
same shallow, bombastic and inhumane POV as modern art. Maybe you need
a better example :)
The is no point in going any further. One should not waste time
arguing with a closed mind. There is nothing to gain here. If you find
it comforting to live totally in the past, fine do so. The present
becomes the past soon enough.
Thanks for the point of view.
Noumenon
artangel wrote:
> Seen anthing new and exciting lately?
> What have you seen recently that you either enjoyed or disliked?
> It would be interesting to know.
Eh-h...
I have seen something interesting (last night) in some gallery called
"Hive" in LA, but I don't really remember WHAT, since it was a party and
my head still feels like something between stinky sewer and mauled
punch-bag...
----------------
However, talking about (relatively) recent offsprings of contemporary
art schools: here is the guy I met on exhibition and I kinda found
SOME of his works interesting, however maybe too _commercial_.
====} http://gabeleonard.com
Here we see an example of new generation artist who seems to have picked
up a good deal of decent technique and other useful skills.
-----------------
Btw, ArtAngel, I see that you ignored my request to show something which
YOU find to be art works of TALENTED people.
Your careless & dismissive reference to necessity of visiting galleries
does not answer anything at all.
--
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
Noumenon
Unless someone throws a big piece of _excrement_ in "ARTANGEL"
she ignores posts even with any questions to herself.
Just as I thought, so much noise and vague references to something,
and nothing concrete.
"WHO are those _talented_ artists you refer to?" - {SILENCE}
"WHERE are all those young geniuses of architecture?" - {SILENCE}
"You dismissed 'daubers' in art, so who are left, and where to see their
art works?" - {SILENCE}
And so on...
Such an unusual reticence all of a sudden!
Sure.
Not a word or a name to back up any of previous statements!
Nothing but usual bullshit and obscure verbiage, as I see.
And I naively thought that "artangel" is sincere and serious about her
outlook of contemporary art.
Pah!
artangel
I was out of town and diddnt know I had to check my travel plans with
you.
WHO are those _talented_ artists you refer to?"
You are correct there are none.
"WHERE are all those young geniuses of architecture?"
You are correct again! There are none.
Such an unusual reticence all of a sudden!
What is left to say when confronted with such a superior, educated,
thoughtful mind such as yours?
And I naively thought that "artangel" is sincere and serious about her
outlook of contemporary art.
Ah you found me out! I am really more interested in knitting.
There do you feel better now?
Thanks for the sex change. (I have been humming "I love being a girl"
since I read your post.
Now go away.
For anyone else out there. I had the opportunity of visiting the new
MOMA in New York. Although I found it an improvement on the old
cramped quarters, it had bit of an up scale shopping mall feeling. Any
thoughts?
Gabeleonard.com
>
> However, talking about (relatively) recent offsprings of contemporary
> art schools: here is the guy I met on exhibition and I kinda found
> SOME of his works interesting, however maybe too _commercial_.
>
> ====} http://gabeleonard.com
>
> Here we see an example of new generation artist who seems to have picked
> up a good deal of decent technique and other useful skills.
>
I didn't learn anything in Art School that I either didn't already know
or could have learned on my own. All education is self-education when
it comes to art. I'm not an offspring of art school anymore than you
are all offspring of highschool.
You are all a bunch of talkers. When one of you contributes anything of
your own to the "art world" let me know.
As far as being commercial. I don't create my art with the idea of how
commercial it is. Galleries don't think that it commercial enough. If
it were I would be in more of them and very wealthy. A lot of the
paintings I create aren't very popular.
On the other hand if you believe that true art isn't commercial than
you live in a fantasy world. Art is a scam and the biggest scam is the
idea that real art isn't commercial. "Non-commercial" art is a huge
business and they've pulled the wool over many peoples eye (mainly
extremely wealthy people) with the marketing gimmick that it is just
art for the sake of art.
The real decline in Art Education is that people are lazy and soft and
don't want to put in the work and dedication it takes to be and artist.
When I went to school it was very tough and half of the freshmen class
dropped out. Now the curriculum is soft and the schools pump out
graduates who end up bagging groceries because they truely don't have
any real skill or discipline. The Art school just wanted to take their
tuition fee. Don't blame the decline on the students, blame it on the
schools who have no integrity anymore.
Gabe
artangel
or could have learned on my own. All education is self-education when
it comes to art.
Expecting an art school to make you an artist is foolish. An art
education is a starting point. It gives you the option of not having
to reinvent the wheel each time and hopefully will expand ones thought
process. That is all one should expect.
You are all a bunch of talkers. When one of you contributes anything of
your own to the "art world" let me know.
There has to be an audience for your work. Just limiting that audience
to those who have "contributed" to the art world (Artists?) is simply
mental masturbation. To be an artist is to have something to say about
the human condition. You put that message out there. Expect diverse
reactions.
if you believe that true art isn't commercial than
you live in a fantasy world. Art is a scam and the biggest scam is the
idea that real art isn't commercial. "Non-commercial" art is a huge
business and they've pulled the wool over many peoples eye (mainly
extremely wealthy people) with the marketing gimmick that it is just
art for the sake of art.
The real truth is that it is the artist who has something interesting
to say or a new perspective that will succeed. It is a rare quality
and therefore very valuable. Why assume that wealthy art collectors
are stupid?
The real decline in Art Education is that people are lazy and soft and
don't want to put in the work and dedication it takes to be and artist.
Does this mean that someone who puts a years worth of time into a work,
rehashing already established themes and ideas should be rewarded more
than someone who spent two weeks and came up with a new insight?
I am truly facinated by all this anger. If the "art world" gave me
this much displeasure, I would find another field of interest.
I went to your web site and liked many of the landscapes. Nice work.
Noumenon
> You are correct there are none.
> You are correct again! There are none.
Judging by your vacuous replies, there are indeed NONE.
{AGAIN:}
Statements unsupported by verifiable data are just worthless verbiage
and lathery buncombe.
------
> I am really more interested in knitting.
I bet you don't. Because even knitting requires SKILLS (the very word
and notion you either do not understand or deny).
However, if you insist: it is quite possible that darning old socks for
veterans of Napoleonic wars would be a proper form of utilization
of your immensely _creative_ drive.
-------
Now that you have recharged the battery of your impudence and vulgarity
by visiting dreary MOMA, you feel like being apishly simple and rude
again?
Rather reasonable were some specialists' observations that people who
like extreme vapid forms of "contemporary" art become just as inhuman &
senseless as that art itself. (On social level and psychological
application, of course).
I hoped you would be able to maintain some informative conversation, and
you could share.
But apparently your posts are going to remain as sapless and
uninformative as your mind - pithless. Alas.
[Off "Artangel" goes permanently into "Bozo Bin" (kill-file), where all
other tiresome jabberers dwell].
artangel
You are correct again! Your posts are terriffic, so insightful. I
have learned so much from you! Everyone but you is stupid. Nothing in
the contemporay arts or society has any value.
Did I get it right?
Do forgive me, I know I am not nearly up to your level but I have only
seen one of your postings where you mention a specific artist. The
rest of your posts are just rantings on the same theme and always
negitive
.Rather reasonable were some specialists' observations that people who
like extreme vapid forms of "contemporary" art become just as inhuman &
senseless as that art itself. (On social level and psychological
application, of course).
So detailed. So informative.. Who are these 'specialists'?
Artangel" goes permanently into "Bozo Bin" (kill-file), where all
other tiresome jabberers dwell].
Thank you, I will be in good company. Better to live in that world than
one as miserable as yours.
Now that you have recharged the battery of your impudence and vulgarity
by visiting dreary MOMA, you feel like being apishly simple and rude
again?
I am still wondering why you are so angry. Is it that you have been
dismissed so often and therefore need to make yourself feel superior as
a defence?
Noumenon
> I didn't learn anything in Art School that I either didn't already know
> or could have learned on my own.
Bummer.
One of the two things possible (or both):
1. you were already gifted enough to go on your own, so that classes did
not contribute anything to your skills/knowledge.
2) You just had bad luck with your art school (it happens way too often
at these days).
> All education is self-education when it comes to art.
Not really. Good teacher can you give you a LOT.
And ALL GREAT masters of fine arts had teachers. And you know that too.
But our time is a little different: most children are too impatient and
lazy, they don't want to learn. And, upon seeing that, many gifted and
skilful artists (who could be good teachers in schools & academies) just
prefer to stay away.
I know exceptionally good and well-known master who quit teaching in
academy because he was tired of students' bad attitude, rudeness, lack
of zeal and respect, impatience and discourtesy.
As the matter of fact I know probably a good dozen of different teachers
(of various fields) who quit because they did not like contemporary
students and were not happy with nowadays tendency of significant
slackening in curricula. And as we know the best always leave first.
Yet, in some cool art academies, let's say somewhere in Italy or Russia,
you can learn much more than most of so-called "professors" here would
ever know.
> You are all a bunch of talkers. When one of you contributes anything of
> your own to the "art world" let me know.
There are some artists among people who post here. They are just too
busy to hang out in here all the time.
Besides, isn't the very idea (?):
USENET forums/newsgroups were created for such purpose: to communicate.
- NO ?
> As far as being commercial. I don't create my art with the idea of how
> commercial it is. Galleries don't think that it commercial enough. If
> it were I would be in more of them and very wealthy. A lot of the
> paintings I create aren't very popular.
Probably you don't aim at being commercial in your art. Well, nobody
says that you paint with such idea in your head, but we talk of what it
looks like after - as a product.
And, obviously, we are talking about different things: "marketable" at
the moment (that is what you mean) and "commercial" in general (I am
talking about) are NOT the same.
I wouldn't bore anyone here with development of this trivial comparison
- if you have a minute you can see it for yourself.
> On the other hand if you believe that true art isn't commercial than
> you live in a fantasy world. Art is a scam and the biggest scam is the
> idea that real art isn't commercial.
_True_ art has nothing to do with commerce at all.
When art becomes _really_ commercial it ceases to be ART anymore.
If other people can turn selling/trading/distributing of art into
certain profit - it's good, but it's NOT purpose of art and neither it
should be purpose of true artist.
We all want our art to sell, who wouldn't ?
But if monetary success is the main purpose and major factor for
creating art - we all will be cooking Kinkaide-style cheesy landscapes,
cheap "pin-up" posters or lousy cliche'd tits-n-swords "fantasy" art.
Eh-h... Disney-style or Manga/Anime-style junk. Or something else,
whatever sells best this year.
And ART is NOT SCAM.
How could you say such thing, Gabe ?!
However, art market (as it is now) and official art _establishment_ CAN
BE.
Shady swindlers, art dealers, greedy gallery owners, bribable museum
curators, self-appointed art "experts" in society, venal art "critics",
antique peddlers and fake art pushers, etc. - all other "leeches" do
turn all movement/acquisition/distribution of art works into SCAM, but
it does not make ART itself any worse or dirtier.
Don't blame ART, when only greedy unscrupulous profiteers manipulating
it are to blame.
> Don't blame the decline on the students, blame it on the schools who have no integrity anymore.
That exactly what this thread originally was about.
It started with article of Prof.Gottsegen who criticized mostly art
schools, not students.