Nita Leland and University Texts
jax...@my-deja.com
I would like to jump in if not literally STOMP ON
the thread being run by those arrogant self-possessed
Queens of the RAF, Alison and Kay.
In the USA there is NO (read that as NONE) authority
that accredits one text book over another for use
in Universities. What to
use for a text, ESPECIALLY in ART SCHOOLS is left
to the discretion of the Professor, in nearly ALL
cases. That's not to say that in all cases there is
not some sort of review committee or whatever at
individual institutions, especially for academic
subjects OTHER than art.
I have both undergrad and grad degrees in art
(BFA and MFA) and I can assure you that I bought
and used whatever books my professors required of
me when in school, including some that would
generally be considered 'light reading.' A good
example is THE PAINTED WORD, by the popular novelist
Tom Wolfe. It was a required text for one of my
art history courses.
I am also acquainted with Nita Leland's first edition
of her Exploring Color. It is, imo, an excellent
reference for any BEGINNING artist, and especially
for beginning students in university art courses.
The really interesting thing in reading through all
the diatribe in the thread denigrating Nita Leland
and her book is that NEITHER of her antagonists has
even seen her book, much less read it.
Alison and Kay are apparently two very frustrated
envious individuals who have nothing better to
do with their time than to spend endless hours
typing up personal insults belittling anyone and
everyone who doesn't agree with their sanctimonious
blathering.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Alison A Raimes
>I've been quietly lurking around out here long enough.
>I would like to jump in if not literally STOMP ON
>the thread being run by those arrogant self-possessed
>Queens of the RAF, Alison and Kay.
You have never quietly lurked, *Marge*.
>
>In the USA there is NO (read that as NONE) authority
>that accredits one text book over another for use
>in Universities. What to
>use for a text, ESPECIALLY in ART SCHOOLS is left
>to the discretion of the Professor, in nearly ALL
>cases. That's not to say that in all cases there is
>not some sort of review committee or whatever at
>individual institutions, especially for academic
>subjects OTHER than art.
Universities have an obligation to their students to provide them with
the necessary academic challenge to enhance their studies in art. That
means a standard level of teaching across the board. Students must
DEMAND that they do this. It is their right. In college we had the
temporary history of art teacher removed from her post for bad teaching.
At University the review board was going to invalidate our course
because of a high drop out and failure rate. The students drew up a
charter of demands that we presented to the staff and the board and we
insisted that they provided us with the education that we were entitled
to. The staff had to sign a legally binding contract with us, to ensure
that they would work towards this. Staff were fired as a result and the
student voice became the most important factor in the continuation of
the course.
>
>I have both undergrad and grad degrees in art
>(BFA and MFA) and I can assure you that I bought
>and used whatever books my professors required of
>me when in school, including some that would
>generally be considered 'light reading.' A good
>example is THE PAINTED WORD, by the popular novelist
>Tom Wolfe. It was a required text for one of my
>art history courses.
Which is exactly the point. If all Universities to do not adhere to the
same academic level, they will inevitably produce sub-standard artists
who then become teachers... generally in peripheral Universities. It
doesn't need to be like that. The standard of education should be the
same at all Universities.
University art students have already gone through the process of
learning to paint and draw or they would not have a place on a Fine Art
degree course. If you have a BFA and MFA then you would know this and
you would not insult your students by including a learn-to-paint book as
required text. Did you need such books in your first year at BFA ? If
not, then why would you feel the need to ask your students to read it ?
You have already told us that your students walk out of your canvas
stretching classes. Perhaps they are bored or don't take you seriously.
>
>I am also acquainted with Nita Leland's first edition
>of her Exploring Color. It is, imo, an excellent
>reference for any BEGINNING artist, and especially
>for beginning students in university art courses.
Obviously - you promote it at every opportunity as University text book
when it is clearly not designed as such. You have just said that it is
for BEGINNERS. University Fine Art students are NOT beginners so why do
you insist on recommending to them - don't you think that is an insult ?
Perhaps the review board at University of New Mexico should investigate.
At our University we had the Head of Department removed from his
position for sub standard teaching. He was the sort of guy who thought
we should all skip down the yellow brick road singing together. In the
meantime the students were not being pushed to their potential - they
were restless and bored and the studios were empty. We demanded that
they replaced him with a qualified teacher who was capable of working to
University degree level. We succeeded.
>The really interesting thing in reading through all
>the diatribe in the thread denigrating Nita Leland
>and her book is that NEITHER of her antagonists has
>even seen her book, much less read it.
Now how on earth would you know that, Flowery Showers ?
>
>Alison and Kay are apparently two very frustrated
>envious individuals who have nothing better to
>do with their time than to spend endless hours
>typing up personal insults belittling anyone and
>everyone who doesn't agree with their sanctimonious
>blathering.
>
I can't speak for Kay because she will be away for a couple of weeks.
For myself, I am committed to raising the standards of University
teaching. During my time at University I spent a considerable amount of
effort as Student Representative, attending meetings and conferences
ensuring that the state of the University I was at was improved and
brought up to the required standards. This meant being able to stand as
the voice of the students, which meant spending time listening to their
streams of complaints regarding their discontentment with the standards
of teaching.
Artists MUST insist on their education system being of the highest
standards wherever the school may be. If that means removing teachers
who are unable to meet those standards so be it - it is up to the
students to ensure this happens. Without the students their is no art
school. The increasing dissatisfaction and drop out rate for
disillusioned art students today must end and the profile of the Art
Graduate must be recognised for what it is - a University degree.
Alison
Marge Inal
says...
>University art students have already gone through the process of
>learning to paint and draw or they would not have a place on a Fine Art
>degree course.
> University Fine Art students are NOT beginners
I haven't a clue how the repressed system of teaching
in the UK works, but you obviously haven't a clue
about how things work in the good ole USofA.
MOST -- and I emphasize MOST -- students who come into
UNIVERSITY art programs are BEGINNERS with NO previous
credentials required to enter a College of Fine Art.
It takes no more to get into college art programs than
it does to enter regular BA programs in any other
college.
MOST students who seek Fine Art degrees are there to
satisfy their parents who wish a 'college education'
for them. If they survive the freshmen year in art
school, which does require some minimum of academic
study besides art, they may succeed in finishing their
BFA. You'll find a high percentage choosing to pursue
degrees in art because they mistakenly think it's the
easiest course to a degree -- and I'm sad to say that
for many it is. Many come out of college without a clue
as to what's required to make it in the 'real art world.'
FYI, there is a serious lack of serious art studies
in education below college level in the USA with
more probabilities for cutting art programs than
cutting sports programs. In the USA, Art at the high
school level is an 'elective' along with wood shop,
leather crafts, home economics, and other 'frill'
courses.
So climb back up on your high throne, put your
crown of bitter vetch back on straight, wipe the
bile off your camoflage fatiques, tie the laces on
your hob-nailed boots and have fun playing at being
Hitler's offspring and Dictator of R.A.F.
Alison A Raimes
writes
>
>I haven't a clue how the repressed system of teaching
>in the UK works, but you obviously haven't a clue
>about how things work in the good ole USofA.
Really ? I though you lived in England once... but you are right - I am
baffled by the USA Arts education system.
>
>MOST -- and I emphasize MOST -- students who come into
>UNIVERSITY art programs are BEGINNERS with NO previous
>credentials required to enter a College of Fine Art.
>It takes no more to get into college art programs than
>it does to enter regular BA programs in any other
>college.
That is absolutely amazing ! You can start a degree in art in the USA
without a portfolio of work that shows you can at least paint and
draw??? I am dumbstruck for the first time in my life. See what I mean
about inconsistency in what an Art Degree represents ?
>
>MOST students who seek Fine Art degrees are there to
>satisfy their parents who wish a 'college education'
>for them. If they survive the freshmen year in art
>school, which does require some minimum of academic
>study besides art, they may succeed in finishing their
>BFA. You'll find a high percentage choosing to pursue
>degrees in art because they mistakenly think it's the
>easiest course to a degree -- and I'm sad to say that
>for many it is. Many come out of college without a clue
>as to what's required to make it in the 'real art world.'
>
Exactly my point. But if you are allowed into a University art degree
without previous studies, no wonder. In the UK by the time you get to
Degree you have to have done an A Level and taken a Foundation Course -
some Universities will take students straight from High School if there
have a grade A in their art, but mostly it will depend on their
portfolio. They will be going up against up to ten times the applicants
for places. Certainly no London School of Art will accept anyone
straight from High School.
>FYI, there is a serious lack of serious art studies
>in education below college level in the USA with
>more probabilities for cutting art programs than
>cutting sports programs. In the USA, Art at the high
>school level is an 'elective' along with wood shop,
>leather crafts, home economics, and other 'frill'
>courses.
Perhaps our system is not so repressed then ? At high school students
choose three or four subjects to study - generally Art is studied
alongside English and Information Technology courses, though last year
we had a student who studied Maths, Chemistry, Physics and Biology as
well as Art, got grade A's in all and chose to do an Art degree instead
of Medicine that her parents were trying to insist on.
>
>So climb back up on your high throne, put your
>crown of bitter vetch back on straight, wipe the
>bile off your camoflage fatiques, tie the laces on
>your hob-nailed boots and have fun playing at being
>Hitler's offspring and Dictator of R.A.F.
>
Golly, anyone else might consider this a personal slur and deformation
of character. Lucky I can't afford to sue you isn't it ? Flowery Showers
- try and be a little more consistent - I don't think it is fair on the
British Royalty to sit them alongside Hitler's children, especially as
he was impotent, do you ? Gosh, it might even be construed as treason
.... oh no, you aren't British are you. Doesn't count - you can make as
many defamatory remarks about our Royalty as you like.
No need to curtsey.
--
Alison
Dan Fox
is accurate. Most Europeans find the indifference, even
negativity, toward art in this country unbelievable. But
it is true.
When I was teaching art, I got students in my adult ed courses
who were high-school seniors. They wanted art
training badly, and of course could not get it in school. In addition,
I had several serious students enroll in my figure-drawing classes in order
to create a full portfolio for good art schools. They could not study the
figure in high school because in the US that would be considered lewd or
obscene. I had to get written permission from the students' parents to view
nude models in order to avoid prosecution for corrupting minors.
In another post (yours?) someone asked about American students' desire
to make art as a factor in going to art school. Most US students go to
art school for the reasons you mentioned - it seems easy. They have no
intention of becoming artists and could care less about art. There are,
however, a few serious students and, if they are persistent, good teaching
is available at some schools.
> MOST -- and I emphasize MOST -- students who come into
> UNIVERSITY art programs are BEGINNERS with NO previous
> credentials required to enter a College of Fine Art.
> It takes no more to get into college art programs than
> it does to enter regular BA programs in any other
> college.
>
> MOST students who seek Fine Art degrees are there to
> satisfy their parents who wish a 'college education'
> for them. If they survive the freshmen year in art
> school, which does require some minimum of academic
> study besides art, they may succeed in finishing their
> BFA. You'll find a high percentage choosing to pursue
> degrees in art because they mistakenly think it's the
> easiest course to a degree -- and I'm sad to say that
> for many it is. Many come out of college without a clue
> as to what's required to make it in the 'real art world.'
>
> FYI, there is a serious lack of serious art studies
> in education below college level in the USA with
> more probabilities for cutting art programs than
> cutting sports programs. In the USA, Art at the high
> school level is an 'elective' along with wood shop,
> leather crafts, home economics, and other 'frill'
> courses.
>
--
Dan
'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
http://www.danfoxart.com
Marge Inal
>In another post (yours?) someone asked about American students' desire
>to make art as a factor in going to art school. Most US students go to
>art school for the reasons you mentioned - it seems easy. They have no
>intention of becoming artists and could care less about art. There are,
>however, a few serious students and, if they are persistent, good teaching
>is available at some schools.
I hesitate to paint all art schools in the USA with the
same broad brush (pardon the pun). I am sure that there
are those like the Art Institute that require some proof
of artistic 'talent' before admitting new students. But
the average tax-supported university or community
college does not have such standards. As long as one
can pass the college entrance exam, which to my knowledge
has very little art-related in it, one can enter the
art program. And the academic core requirements are
usually minimal at best. For example, one can take a
year of business math and satisfy the core requirements
oftentimes. No calculus or advanced math of any kind
needed.
Another thing that many who are not familiar with the
USA system don't realize is that MANY of the lower
undergraduate courses are TAUGHT by Teaching Assistants.
These are graduate students usually in their final year
of grad school and usually, but NOT ALWAYS, they are
supposed to be supervised by one of the regular faculty.
I had a wonderful young woman who taught the inter-discipline
music semester that I had to take. And I was taught
the required Design 101 class by a T.A. And I think
I had another T.A. or two but can't now remember.
I taught a semester as a T.A. myself. I taught 'painting'
to non-art majors and had a class of 18 that dropped
to 15 by semester's end.
One final comment on large university programs in the
USA. I wonder how many reading this realize that in
the undergraduate years, especially freshman level,
you attend AUDITORIUM size classes. For example, there
were easily 300 or more in my first Art History
classes. Again T.A.s fill in for the lecturer who
can't possibly spend time outside class with all those
who need assistance outside of class hours. As one
progresses to senior status the class sizes diminish
exponentially. But not totally.
Chris
Before you get carried away (yet again) on your high horse you might
want to do a little checking into the American educational system, and
how (and why) it differs from the European model.
The European system has always been targetted at an elite group; the
Americans deliberately opened up educational avenues to a far broader
group. Hence their university 'system' (I use that guardedly) runs from
the 20K$/year elite Ivy League schools to the low cost (for state
residents) land grant state schools. Not that this is a good
classification per se - the University of California ranks pretty high
in the world by any standard... But the point is is that for democracy
to flourish, education must be made available as broadly as possible.
Certainly the Americans haven't perfected this - but they've probably
gone further than any other nation.
There are schools in art (such as Philadelphia) that have extremely high
admission requirements, there are schools of art that don't. Likewise
for all fields. And each school - within very broad limits - is free to
set its own standards and a good deal of its course structure. (I know
one school with a dynamite film dept and a fantastic media lab that
doesn't record the marks from first year - if you fail a course during
that time any record of it is removed from your transcript - and it
offers such gut courses as "The Symphonies of Boston". It's M.I.T).
The beauty of the system is that schools that fail to educate their
students don't survive; schools that do succeed produce successful
graduates who then (in turn) support and strengthen their school. Unlike
the system here in Canada, or (even worse) Europe, or (worse still)
Japan. (Note that Japanese high school standards would make yours look
American by comparison.) And from my own experience I'd say that
creativity and tolerance of the resulting graduates is inversely
proportional to the rigidity of the system from which they come.
Cheers;
Chris
http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB
PS. As the assistant head of the school I went to was fond of say "I
don't care WHAT you learn, as long as you learn HOW to learn."
Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
> In article <37d43...@oracle.zianet.com>, Marge Inal <do...@emailme.com>
> writes
> >
> >I haven't a clue how the repressed system of teaching
> >in the UK works, but you obviously haven't a clue
> >about how things work in the good ole USofA.
>
> Really ? I though you lived in England once... but you are right - I am
> baffled by the USA Arts education system.
> >
> >MOST -- and I emphasize MOST -- students who come into
> >UNIVERSITY art programs are BEGINNERS with NO previous
> >credentials required to enter a College of Fine Art.
> >It takes no more to get into college art programs than
> >it does to enter regular BA programs in any other
> >college.
>
> That is absolutely amazing ! You can start a degree in art in the USA
> without a portfolio of work that shows you can at least paint and
> draw??? I am dumbstruck for the first time in my life. See what I mean
> about inconsistency in what an Art Degree represents ?
> >
> >MOST students who seek Fine Art degrees are there to
> >satisfy their parents who wish a 'college education'
> >for them. If they survive the freshmen year in art
> >school, which does require some minimum of academic
> >study besides art, they may succeed in finishing their
> >BFA. You'll find a high percentage choosing to pursue
> >degrees in art because they mistakenly think it's the
> >easiest course to a degree -- and I'm sad to say that
> >for many it is. Many come out of college without a clue
> >as to what's required to make it in the 'real art world.'
> >
>
> Exactly my point. But if you are allowed into a University art degree
> without previous studies, no wonder. In the UK by the time you get to
> Degree you have to have done an A Level and taken a Foundation Course -
> some Universities will take students straight from High School if there
> have a grade A in their art, but mostly it will depend on their
> portfolio. They will be going up against up to ten times the applicants
> for places. Certainly no London School of Art will accept anyone
> straight from High School.
>
> >FYI, there is a serious lack of serious art studies
> >in education below college level in the USA with
> >more probabilities for cutting art programs than
> >cutting sports programs. In the USA, Art at the high
> >school level is an 'elective' along with wood shop,
> >leather crafts, home economics, and other 'frill'
> >courses.
>
Erik A. Mattila
I would add that in the U.S., often, art is also thought of as a civil
right. This has had a stong impact on public education. Additionally, it is
the business of undergraduate curricula design to insure transferability,
which requires the impementation of 'standards.' Therefore courses offerings
differ little from campus to campus. This puts some constraints on
creativity and innovation in teaching art. Curriculum articulation is a
complex affair, and course must be articulated (accredited) in order to
qualify for federal and state subsidies in the form of tuition scholarships
and federal, state and local endowments. One change that has taken place
recently was in response to the critique leveled against education in the US
when it was measured that USAnians were coming out of the system functionally
illiterate and the question of 'quality' arose. Now federal and state grant
programs contain items like 'tracking' (reporting the benefits of a grant by
keeping tags on students after they graduate to see if what they learned was
useful) and 'transferability' (to determine if the content of a funded
program actually produced a learnig product that could be used in real life
-- specifically employment skills).
Obviously fine art curricula is difficult to measure against these kinds of
standards. But again, the majority of those who graduate with an
undergraduate in art studio, who stay associated with the arts at all, end up
working in various fields of applied arts, or commercial arts. However, many
just use the BA degree generically, and subsequently qualify for career
positions that have nothing to do with art at all. (The same is true with
Psychology majors).
It's quite different on a graduate level, of course. In many institutions,
even the UC system (since you mention it) ,the undergraduate program is sort
of like KP in the military, and the faculty often aren't too enthusiastic
about putting in their time (paying their dues), but the undergraduate
division is the bread and butter of the graduate programs. But at the
graduate level, innovation and even experimental teaching is very doable.
Thus various campuses distinguish themselves - and there is a very pronounced
diversity of graduate degree programs even within the UC system. BTW. I know
of no MFA programs that don't require a portfolio. But here's the catch,
rejects in programs such as UC Davis' can fail just as much for a strong
portfilio as a weak one. The faculty there, when it reviews applications
every year (and about one percent make it) always ask the question "will this
student benefit by our program?" An outstanding portfilio leads to rejects,
since it is thought that the applicant doesn't really need the program.
Irony, right?
Erik Mattila
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>Alison;
>
>Before you get carried away (yet again) on your high horse you might
>want to do a little checking into the American educational system, and
>how (and why) it differs from the European model.
If the *high horse* means expressing an opinion in something I feel
strongly about then no, I will not get down. I suggest you don't ever
tell anyone to do that again or they may want to discuss the Americans
confused set of ideals.... which, the more time I spend on Usenet, are
considerably dubious.
Actually, Chris - not only do I have several friends who teach in
Universities in the US and studied under a *research fellow* who works
between Manchester Met and a University in California, but I also looked
into applications for MFA in the there a couple of years ago and
narrowly escaped an exchange programme at some school in South Dakota. I
was advised against both because the teaching staff did not think I
would get the same challenge as I would from a British Art School-
otherwise I would be enrolled for MFA by now. (I lived in the US for
three years, by the way.)
Are you confused, Chris ? University Education in Britain has always,
until this year, been FREE - no, more than that, it is supported by
government grants. There are no Universities in Britain that you have to
pay to attend. University Education *is* a civil right here and
government grants financing is mandatory - in other words EVERYONE is
entitled to it. They are governed by a State Board that controls the
quality and standards of teaching but do not set curriculum's that have
to be adhered to - which means that teaching differs from school to
school. One that fails to meet the required standards will have the
degree courses invalidated.
Does that sound like a repressed education system to you ?
So you see, I am well aware of the *models* and how they differ (they
are also different in our country to a lesser extent). Aster-Flowery
Showers-Madge, isn't - or anything else relating to today's world so it
seems. The idea of a hobbyist teaching art in a *University* is pretty
alarming, you have to admit - even someone as stuffy and boring as you
must realise that.
Gurgle gurgle ... you can go back to sleep now.
Alison
James W. Foster
Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:19990907171331.695$m...@newsreader.com...
Most US students go to
> art school for the reasons you mentioned - it seems easy. They have no
> intention of becoming artists and could care less about art.
I should point out that in the UK at least Higher Education arts courses
involve something like the third highest amounts of lecture time (including
studio practice, lectures, seminars, visual studies and the like). I think
it was only medical and engineering degrees that came higher. My
recollection is a bit vague so I'm open to correction, but that was the
general gist of the report last year.
Meanwhile, as far as elitism goes, life is elitist. If you're crap, you
don't succeed, if you aren't, you do. Our smarmy Prime Minister wants the
entry requirements of our universities to come down to bridge the gap
between 'A' Levels and degrees. Such a move could only lower the standards
of learning as less able students will be unable to keep up with degree
level work, so institutions will be forced to lower their course standards.
-james
Alison A Raimes
<jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> writes
>don't succeed, if you aren't, you do. Our smarmy Prime Minister wants the
>entry requirements of our universities to come down to bridge the gap
>between 'A' Levels and degrees. Such a move could only lower the standards
>of learning as less able students will be unable to keep up with degree
>level work, so institutions will be forced to lower their course standards.
>
>-james
He has to do that now that University Education is no longer free,
otherwise the Universities will be empty.
James W. Foster
bit arse, especially when coupled with the abolition of grants but a grand a
year extra's a small price to pay for an education when in other countries
they're charging full tuition fees. Plus if you're really hard up you can
get a hardship loan or try for a sponsorship. There's ways of getting round
it if you can be bothered to try. Most students I know that are in debt
spent a year buying loads of CDs, clubbing and drinking the bar dry. I
didn't and I came out of the first year solvent and still having had a good
time. Next year will be a different story, but that's because I've just
blown my life savings on a PC.
The tuition fees also theoretically should put student unions in a better
position - students are now paying customers, so they're in a better
position to demand better lecturers or equipment. (the customer's always
right) It should also hopefully discourage some of the wasters who only
want to go to uni to drink and avoid work for three years.
The thing that worries me is whether or not the government will raise the
figure in the future. Britain's population pyramid is getting top heavy
like the USA's as people are having less kids and living longer. If the
state takes away too much money from young people to go towards supporting
the elderly then it's going to be like a snake eating its own tail.
Marge Inal
>It's quite different on a graduate level, of course.
I'm glad you brought this up. While I've been delving in
enlightening the readership on undergraduate programs
in the USA, at least as I know them, you have helped
to spotlight the graduate programs and the difference
between the two.
In order to enter any legitimate MFA program of which
I am aware, one MUST have a portfolio of work that
is judged by the faculty admissions committee. Many
schools have limited programs so that one needs to
know if there is printmaking, photography, etc before
submitting portfolios for those majors. Im MOST cases
one must also score high on the Graduate Records Exam
which is required by many if not most graduate schools.
In my own case I built two portfolios of undergraduate
work. One was for a 'painting' major and the other
was for 'printmaking.' Because it is more difficult
to get into a painting program, I chose to use my
printmaking portfolio. One usually has no trouble
changing one's major once accepted to graduate school,
and that was my case, although I did do a lot of
printmaking in graduate school.
Marge Inal
says...
>The idea of a hobbyist teaching art in a *University* is pretty
>alarming, you have to admit - even someone as stuffy and boring as you
>must realise that.
I echo Nita Leland in saying to you that I too have
nothing to prove to you and have no intention of
doing so. But what I produce in my 'hobby' makes
what you do look like kindergarten finger painting.
And now, I'm going back to sleep and you can continue
to rant and rage until your keepers find you and
return you to the looney house you originally escaped
from. Can you say 'sieg hiel?'
Alison A Raimes
writes
>
>I echo Nita Leland in saying to you that I too have
>nothing to prove to you and have no intention of
>doing so.
Of course not - you have an MFA and you teach art to prove it, don't
you? I, however, only have a measly little BFA - so you MUST be better
than I am.
>But what I produce in my 'hobby' makes
>what you do look like kindergarten finger painting.
You know what Picasso said about being able to draw like Raphael by the
time he was 14 and then spending the rest of his life trying to draw
like a child ...
>And now, I'm going back to sleep and you can continue
Sorry to wake you up ;-)
>to rant and rage until your keepers find you and
>return you to the looney house you originally escaped
>from. Can you say 'sieg hiel?'
>
No, I didn't learn German at school. I wish I had - Berlin and Munich
have a buzzing art scene. Perhaps I will do night school.
Au revoir.
Alison
mdeli
<Ali...@signature.in.address> wrote:
>You know what Picasso said about being able to draw like Raphael by the
>time he was 14
Picasso could never draw any better than a very average academic
student. Anyone who imagines that Picasso could ever draw better than
an average academic has never carefully looked at classical drawings.
> and then spending the rest of his life trying to draw
>like a child ...
...and all he could do was draw better then his competitors, most of
whom couldn't draw at all.
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/
mdeli
>Sad to say, your assessment of the art school scene in the USA
>is accurate. Most Europeans find the indifference, even
>negativity, toward art in this country unbelievable. But
>it is true.
>
You mean negativity to your sort of crap
>> MOST -- and I emphasize MOST -- students who come into
>> UNIVERSITY art programs are BEGINNERS with NO previous
>> credentials required to enter a College of Fine Art.
And they leave college with little more knowledge then when they
entered.
mdeli
>Universities have an obligation to their students to provide them with
>the necessary academic challenge to enhance their studies in art.
Wrong.
Universities should teach art students, the ability to use their craft
in order to make a living. They fail at this because the teachers
don't know the craft.
>That
>means a standard level of teaching across the board. Students must
>DEMAND that they do this. It is their right. In college we had the
>temporary history of art teacher removed from her post for bad teaching.
>At University the review board was going to invalidate our course
>because of a high drop out and failure rate. The students drew up a
>charter of demands that we presented to the staff and the board and we
>insisted that they provided us with the education that we were entitled
>to. The staff had to sign a legally binding contract with us, to ensure
>that they would work towards this. Staff were fired as a result and the
>student voice became the most important factor in the continuation of
>the course.
Baloney. If the teacher doesn't know his craft he can't teach it.
> If all Universities to do not adhere to the
>same academic level, they will inevitably produce sub-standard artists
>who then become teachers... generally in peripheral Universities. It
>doesn't need to be like that. The standard of education should be the
>same at all Universities.
What "standard?"
>University art students have already gone through the process of
>learning to paint and draw or they would not have a place on a Fine Art
>degree course.
Utter nonsense. You are a good example. You can't draw and even a PHD
won't help you. Most art schools are institutions of failure because
the teachers, like you, are failures.
>The increasing dissatisfaction and drop out rate for
>disillusioned art students today must end and the profile of the Art
>Graduate must be recognised for what it is - a University degree.
Nobody gives a shit about an art degree. Its worthless unless you want
to get a teaching position in order to teach the next generation of
failures.
All that counts is you work.
Dan Fox
to put in a correction. The statement below, that 'nobody gives a shit
about an arts degree ... unless you want a teaching position' is
demonstrably false. Many galleries and museums will not even consider your
work unless you have a BFA, preferably an MFA.
I wish that Mani's second statment, 'all that counts is your work' were
true. Unfortunately, it is not. Education and exhibition history are prime
considerations for most galleries when considering an artist's work. The
reason for this is twofold: first, most gallery owners do not know good art
from bad, and must rely on other criteria when picking artists they think
will sell. (And selling is the *only* consideration, believe me!) Second,
an artist with an MFA and an exhibition history is easier to market to
collectors.
I suspect that Mani has no exhibition history himself, and thus does not
know the realities of the art world.
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
> Nobody gives a shit about an art degree. Its worthless unless you want
> to get a teaching position in order to teach the next generation of
> failures.
>
> All that counts is you work.
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
--
James W. Foster
> Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
> >Universities have an obligation to their students to provide them with
> >the necessary academic challenge to enhance their studies in art.
>
Then mdeli wrote:
> Wrong.
> Universities should teach art students, the ability to use their craft
> in order to make a living. They fail at this because the teachers
> don't know the craft.
Actually, they should do BOTH. Students need to learn how to make a living
with their craft or they come out of the other end - usually after being in
education for 20 or so years - without a clue how to cope in the 'real'
world. Same goes for any subject. However, without a challenge to rise to,
how are you supposed to improve? Even if the challenge is simply to do what
you can already do better than you've done before. If there is no challenge
in education, why bother doing it in the first place?
One of my old tutors once said "It's not what the student is that counts, or
what he does - but what he does with who he is."
> >That
> >means a standard level of teaching across the board. Students must
> >DEMAND that they do this. It is their right. In college we had the
> >temporary history of art teacher removed from her post for bad teaching.
> >At University the review board was going to invalidate our course
> >because of a high drop out and failure rate. The students drew up a
> >charter of demands that we presented to the staff and the board and we
> >insisted that they provided us with the education that we were entitled
> >to. The staff had to sign a legally binding contract with us, to ensure
> >that they would work towards this. Staff were fired as a result and the
> >student voice became the most important factor in the continuation of
> >the course.
>
> Baloney. If the teacher doesn't know his craft he can't teach it.
Excuse me, try actually reading posts before replying to them. Alison was
saying her teacher was shit, so the students got them fired. Surely a
teacher who doesn't know their craft (like the graphics tutor at my old high
school who only knew Food & Nutrition), therefore making them unsuitable to
teach it, deserves to be sacked by demand of the students. Why should
students have to tolerate being given teachers who don't know their stuff?
You wouldn't let a complete novice teach open-heart surgery would you?
You've just contradicted a valid point and tried to support it by making a
comment that supports the point you contradicted!
> What "standard?"
The standard you expect of a degree level education. I must say I was
shocked last year when applying to universities because many of my
classmates came back from interviews saying the institutions they'd applied
to refuse to do life drawing because 'it has no relevance to art', some had
even been slated by their interviewers for painting/drawing in a realistic
style!
Such forcing-of-agendas is in my mind as inexcusable as telling people which
religion to follow. One of the reasons I chose my college is because they
have no bias towards abstract, 'avant-garde' or the figurative. They teach
each in equal measure and leave it up to us to choose which style to pursue,
which suits me fine because I like working in all of them.
> Utter nonsense. You are a good example. You can't draw and even a PHD
> won't help you. Most art schools are institutions of failure because
> the teachers, like you, are failures.
Oh please. How can you pollute the bandwidths with this petty, unfounded
wibbling? You don't know whether Alison can draw well or not because you've
never seen her draw. For all you know, she might have sketchbooks full of
classical drawings that she chose not to publish online because they're not
important. You make arguments against modern art that are as original and
relevant as arguing that Japanese is a crap language because it doesn't use
the Roman alphabet. You claim at the bottom of the pages on your website
that before the internet this type of criticism was impossible - you're
bullshitting. People just like you have been wittering on in newspaper
columns, coffee shops, radio shows and the like since the dawn of Modernism.
You don't like abstract art so you think that everyone else shouldn't
because you're obviously superior. All you're doing is masturbating in
public. One day you might learn the difference between being righteous and
being self-righteous. being righteous makes you respected, being
self-righteous makes you a twat.
> Nobody gives a shit about an art degree. Its worthless unless you want
> to get a teaching position in order to teach the next generation of
> failures.
>
Wrong! In the UK at least an art degree can open up a wide variety of doors
in all sorts of creative fields from film to advertising to, yes, teaching.
An example of this is, I have been told by people with knowledge of the
industry, television. Employers would rather take on people from art
degrees than medi studies students because knowing how to push buttons on a
camera is one thing, being able to do something new with it is another.
Fortunately for the visual arts, most Fine Art courses here still have a
solid traditional base in the skills of drawing, use of colour, golden
proportion and so on.
> All that counts is you work.
Wow! The man actually said something that's true! Are you feeling alright?
Not running a temperature or anything are you? At the end of the day,
whether your degree is from Slade, Southampton or the University Of Life, if
your work is shit you sink without trace (unless Saatchi buys it of course!)
-james
...no friends, no allies...
Kay
:won't help you. Most art schools are institutions of failure because
:the teachers, like you, are failures.
Mani, you have to learn to substantiate your weak critiques. Alison has
drawings on her site that are excellent. She isn't "Illustrating" though if
that is what you seek. Some confuse realistic rendering with good drawing.
Take Scientific Anatomy Illustration course (they DO teach it there) for the
one and take a fine arts Drawing course for the other. They aren't the
same.
Kay
Alison A Raimes
writes
>Utter nonsense. You are a good example. You can't draw and even a PHD
>won't help you. Most art schools are institutions of failure because
>the teachers, like you, are failures.
>Nobody gives a shit about an art degree. Its worthless unless you want
>to get a teaching position in order to teach the next generation of
>failures.
>
>All that counts is you work.
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
You see this is where you let yourself down, Mani. You have no idea if I
can draw or not, and what relevance has it anyway ? You have already
declared me a *failure* therefore why on earth should you be concerned
by whether or not I can draw ?
Firstly, in order to justify this statement you must be able to qualify
what *failure* is - can you do this ? and how are you able to measure
the quality of a drawing in order to determine if it is a success or
failure ?
If you had read my post you would find that I am in agreement with you
that no one gives a shit about an arts degree. That is why I am so
actively involved in changing this attitude and in ensuring that
students receive the sort of education that befits a degree. Apparently
the students in the US start teaching in their art schools when they
graduate. That seems ridiculous to me - they have no experience of
working outside the environment of the institute and have no exhibition
track record. They haven't had to deal with the real world of shuffling
crummy jobs around the joy of being in the studio. They haven't had the
time to find out what it is like to make the decision making involved in
art, by themselves. In order to get a University teaching post in the UK
you have to have a proven record of working as a professional Artist as
well as an MFA. Many places also insist on a post graduate teaching
certificate.
At least your last sentence is correct. There isn't a being in the
Universe who could accuse me of not working. The proof is in the
pudding, dear boy.
--
Alison
PS I will get back to Kandinsky later on in the week when my life is less
hectic. Stand bye.
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>Mani, you have to learn to substantiate your weak critiques. Alison has
>drawings on her site that are excellent. She isn't "Illustrating" though if
>that is what you seek. Some confuse realistic rendering with good drawing.
>Take Scientific Anatomy Illustration course (they DO teach it there) for the
>one and take a fine arts Drawing course for the other. They aren't the
>same.
>Kay
>
Didn't expect to see your name for a couple of weeks, Kay ! I see Matti
employed her *boy* from ba.singles to flame you while you were gone ;-)
Perhaps it would be interesting to see why we no longer feel the need to
draw the *perfect* classical drawing - and why some Art Schools even go
so far as dismissing the relevance of drawing to University studies. I
imagine that if most of us here, as artists, dedicated our entire lives
to learning how to, we could. But why would we ? What purpose would it
serve ? to show that we are capable of such a unique *talent* ? and then
what ? have our drawings hang in some museum for all the world to be in
awe of ? Why, I ask ? What is it about the humans that they need to feel
they have some power over the universe through some pointless activity ?
Art is an absurdity of human existence and yet millions of people find
it stimulating and challenging. Can that alone, not be enough ?
Alison
James W. Foster
> they have some power over the universe through some pointless activity ?
> Art is an absurdity of human existence and yet millions of people find
> it stimulating and challenging. Can that alone, not be enough ?
It's like beermat flipping or yo-yo tricks or flicking open Zippo lighters
like in the movies or breakdancing. Pointless, but it impresses people and
is fun if you like that sort of thing. Personally most of my attempts at
the things mentioned above have ended up in disaster, but my life is no
less complete without them.
I'll be offline for a week soon because I've not taken out insurance on my
PC in my student house yet so it's staying here. Have fun.
-james
Alison A Raimes
<jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> writes
>I'll be offline for a week soon because I've not taken out insurance on my
>PC in my student house yet so it's staying here. Have fun.
>
>-james
Have a good start to the term ! Insure through Endsleigh - cost around
100 pounds per year. I will be off too - friend from Florida arriving
tomorrow. Have fun yourself !
mdeli
>Perhaps it would be interesting to see why we no longer feel the need to
>draw the *perfect* classical drawing - and why some Art Schools even go
>so far as dismissing the relevance of drawing to University studies.
WHy? Because 98% of art teachers haven't the skill to copy a comic
book illustration. The difference between drawing well and classical
drawing is vast.
Drawing well requires the ability to draw anything and give it a sense
of space, technique and to make the page attractive. It can Be
abstract, realistic or surreal. It can be any subject.
I
>imagine that if most of us here, as artists, dedicated our entire lives
>to learning how to, we could.
Keep imagining.
>But why would we ? What purpose would it
>serve ? to show that we are capable of such a unique *talent* ? and then
>what ? have our drawings hang in some museum for all the world to be in
>awe of ? Why, I ask ? What is it about the humans that they need to feel
>they have some power over the universe through some pointless activity ?
Its pointless to most artzy fartzy paupers.
>Art is an absurdity of human existence and yet millions of people find
>it stimulating and challenging. Can that alone, not be enough ?
Speak for yourself. Your work is an absurdity. Whether that's enough
is up to you.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
mdeli
> You have no idea if I
>can draw or not, and what relevance has it anyway ?
-No more relevence than any of your criticism.
You posted some drawings. I find them incompetent. If you want to
convince me otherwise, do so with drawings not talk.
>
>If you had read my post you would find that I am in agreement with you
>that no one gives a shit about an arts degree. That is why I am so
>actively involved in changing this attitude and in ensuring that
>students receive the sort of education that befits a degree. Apparently
>the students in the US start teaching in their art schools when they
>graduate.
They mostly never start.
> There isn't a being in the
>Universe who could accuse me of not working. The proof is in the
>pudding, dear boy.
You couldn't draw a plate of pudding or a "rotten egg."
If you haven't mastered your craft your work will interest hardly
anyone wether or not you work untill you drop.
mdeli
>One of my old tutors once said "It's not what the student is that counts, or
>what he does - but what he does with who he is."
I guess it didn't matter to this idiot what his students did. The
final part of the sentence sounds like the usual cryptic art school
bullshit.
> Why should
>students have to tolerate being given teachers who don't know their stuff?
They sure seem to.
>You wouldn't let a complete novice teach open-heart surgery would you?
Art schools are full of complete idiots claiming to teach art.
>Oh please. How can you pollute the bandwidths with this petty, unfounded
>wibbling? You don't know whether Alison can draw well or not because you've
>never seen her draw.
Look at her web page.
>You don't like abstract art so you think that everyone else shouldn't
>because you're obviously superior.
I like abstract art. Magazine graphics, cartoons, Japanese painting,
Persian rugs etc. I suspect you and many artzy fartzies here haven't
looked at much abstract art.
>> Nobody gives a shit about an art degree. Its worthless unless you want
>> to get a teaching position in order to teach the next generation of
>> failures.
>>
>
>Wrong! In the UK at least an art degree can open up a wide variety of doors
>in all sorts of creative fields from film to advertising to, yes, teaching.
Well then get a degree and try for a job on that basis.
.
>Fortunately for the visual arts, most Fine Art courses here still have a
>solid traditional base in the skills of drawing, use of colour, golden
>proportion and so on.
>
Unfortunately, you believe the baloney you were told in art school.
I've seen years worth of artwork by failures who think they can draw.
They spend their lives wondering why nobody else thinks so.
mdeli
wrote:
>:Utter nonsense. You are a good example. You can't draw and even a PHD
>:won't help you. Most art schools are institutions of failure because
>:the teachers, like you, are failures.
>:
>Mani, you have to learn to substantiate your weak critiques. Alison has
>drawings on her site that are excellent. She isn't "Illustrating" though if
>that is what you seek.
It isn't what I seek. However I expect more than somewhat dirty paper.
> Some confuse realistic rendering with good drawing.
Good drawing doesn't have to be "realistic rendering." Look at
cartoons and comic books, jap prints, etc.
However if you can't render what you see you'll get as far as a
musician who doesn't know the scales.
>Take Scientific Anatomy Illustration course (they DO teach it there)
Doctors know anatomy; most can't draw.
> for the
>one and take a fine arts Drawing course for the other. They aren't the
>same.
I"ve seen the results produced by those who take courses called
drawing. Lots of same looking dirty paper.
mdeli
>In case any newcomers to the art world are reading this thread, I want
>to put in a correction. The statement below, that 'nobody gives a shit
>about an arts degree ... unless you want a teaching position' is
>demonstrably false. Many galleries and museums will not even consider your
>work unless you have a BFA, preferably an MFA.
I guess there is evidence and that you are somewhat correct. Many of
the goons from the universities have become curators and won't
represent anyone who didn't experience the same brand of nonsense that
they have.
>I wish that Mani's second statment, 'all that counts is your work' were
>true. Unfortunately, it is not. Education and exhibition history are prime
>considerations for most galleries when considering an artist's work. The
>reason for this is twofold: first, most gallery owners do not know good art
>from bad, and must rely on other criteria when picking artists they think
>will sell. (And selling is the *only* consideration, believe me!) Second,
>an artist with an MFA and an exhibition history is easier to market to
>collectors.
I've yet to see a gallery owner ask for a degree. Anyone?
>I suspect that Mani has no exhibition history himself, and thus does not
>know the realities of the art world.
I suspect you are wrong.
>
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>>
>> Nobody gives a shit about an art degree. Its worthless unless you want
>> to get a teaching position in order to teach the next generation of
>> failures.
>>
>> All that counts is you work.
>>
Dan Fox
being taught in many (but not all) art schools. In looking at art for more
years than I care to remember, by far the most frequent problem I see is
the lack of adequate drawing ability to bring off the artist's concept. (A
close second is lack of creativity.)
As long as we're critiquing web sites: Mani's drawing is adequate; I'd put
it at the advanced amateur level. The biggest problem with the work is lack
of creativity - having to parody everyone from Dali to deKooning is
evidence of a serious lack of imagination.
mdeli
>There is some truth to what Mani says about the lack of drawing skills
>being taught in many (but not all) art schools. In looking at art for more
>years than I care to remember, by far the most frequent problem I see is
>the lack of adequate drawing ability to bring off the artist's concept. (A
>close second is lack of creativity.)
>
> Mani's drawing is adequate; I'd put
>it at the advanced amateur level. The biggest problem with the work is lack
>of creativity - having to parody everyone from Dali to deKooning is
>evidence of a serious lack of imagination.
Check out both web sites and compare them!
As long as we're critiquing web sites:
The paintings on Dan Fox's web site represent the usual abstractionist
try for a win in the Modern Academic Art Lottery. Should he be lucky I
predict he'll make a fortune and become very pompous.
However, I doubt that Mr. Fox will win because he possess neither the
chutzpa or that special lack of talent really necessary to impress any
artzy fartzy that really wields power. .
All Mr. Fox's web page paintings exhibit brilliant enlargements of 3
square inches of various sections of Dali's skies which he used to
create his large underpaintings. However, he should never have
allowed his chimpanzee assistant to carelessly execute the
overpainting.
Even in the thumbnails of his paintings one can see that:
-the chicken scratches aren't nearly as ugly as Twombly's. (technical)
-his paintings aren't big enough to rally the richys. (economic)
-they can't pass as a new style put-ons. (subject matter)
-his schlock minimal abstraction is no more interesting than the usual
square miles of web site artwork drivel. (social implications)
-his paintings are scarcely even ugly. (an opinion)
James W. Foster
> I guess it didn't matter to this idiot what his students did. The
> final part of the sentence sounds like the usual cryptic art school
> bullshit.
>
I'll get on to that in a moment...
> They sure seem to.
Because they've become complacent, like the dumbf###s who voted Conservative
in the last two UK General elections.
> Art schools are full of complete idiots claiming to teach art.
All the better reason for students to demand a selective cull of these
timewasters then. although there is always something nice about leaving a
classroom in the knowledge you know more than your tutors. Has anyone else
out there noticed the way your tutors at college always say you've been the
best year they've had yet? IMHO, anyone so obviously sycophantic should
never be trusted.
> Look at her web page.
How do you know those are her only drawings? Maybe she just chose to show
them because she liked them.
> I like abstract art. Magazine graphics, cartoons, Japanese painting,
> Persian rugs etc. I suspect you and many artzy fartzies here haven't
> looked at much abstract art.
I suspect you assume wrong.
Funny you should now admit to liking abstract art, considering the sheer
effort you go to to slag much of it off. You like to pontificate at length
on the lack of skill around you and yet have single-handledly failed to
provide anyone with a clue of what you consider to be 'skill'. Going by
what you've said so far, it doesn't have to be illustrative, doesn't have to
have a solid base in traditional drawing, shouldn't be accompanied by lots
of waffle to promote it and yet can be as banal, tacky and sterile as the
products of Disney, the man/company who rewrite history/myth to remove all
the nasty bits.
If you're going to try and put the world to rights, which would explain why
you go on like you're on a mission, how can you expect to do that if you
don't tell people what your vision of skill is. At present it would appear
you are merely playing games to hide your sheer self-rightousness and
obscure the lack of substance at the empty centre of your arguments, a trick
neatly executed by the artspeak-spinners you put down so often. If you have
such a clear vision of what you believe in and are so superior then why, oh
Mani our saviour, don't you actually produce something with it, take the
world by storm and make the world see the truth instead of sitting on your
arse trying to sell self-promotionary books and spending lots of time online
saying everything is shit?
> Well then get a degree and try for a job on that basis.
Er, that's what I'm doing at the moment...
> Unfortunately, you believe the baloney you were told in art school.
Wrong, I ignore the balony I get forced on me at art school, produce the
minimum amount of work necessary to fulfill their criteria then go off and
produce work to my criteria.
> I've seen years worth of artwork by failures who think they can draw.
> They spend their lives wondering why nobody else thinks so.
Ah, that's the difference between me and them then, I know I can't draw, but
I don't particularly care...
-james
no skill... no art... but what is skill..? and what is art..?
Kay
literature groups and all other groups I've lurked at briefly (including
alt.sculpture). The MAIN thing ANYONE should get out of a University
education is the ability to KNOW HOW TO LEARN! You can use drawing or
traditional skills or conceptual skills and certainly art history, but the
real education should begin in earnest after graduation. Self-taught can
certainly get there, but, except for the most dedicated and brightest, the
ability to KEEP LEARNING will be ignored, just as this subject will never be
resolved here and should be ignored.
Kay
mdeli
<jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> wrote:
When you quote me I would appreciate it if you would mention my name.
I wrote:
>> I guess it didn't matter to this idiot what his students did. The
>> final part of the sentence sounds like the usual cryptic art school
>> bullshit.
>>
>> Art schools are full of complete idiots claiming to teach art.
>All the better reason for students to demand a selective cull of these
>timewasters then. although there is always something nice about leaving a
>classroom in the knowledge you know more than your tutors.
I guess you have time to waste.
Referring to Allison's schmiers I wrote:
>> Look at her web page.
>
>How do you know those are her only drawings? Maybe she just chose to show
>them because she liked them.
Its possible. But its doubtful. I suspect that Alison shows the best
she can do. There's nothing to stop her to proving me wrong.
>> I like abstract art. Magazine graphics, cartoons, Japanese painting,
>> Persian rugs etc. I suspect you and many artzy fartzies here haven't
>> looked at much abstract art.
>
>I suspect you assume wrong.
>
>Funny you should now admit to liking abstract art, considering the sheer
>effort you go to to slag much of it off.
I "slag off" Modern Academic Bullshit. Modern Abstract Art is neither
original, modern or of interest to most people. Abstraction is all
around us.
>You like to pontificate at length
>on the lack of skill around you and yet have single-handledly failed to
>provide anyone with a clue of what you consider to be 'skill'.
I guess you don't know what skill is.
>Going by
>what you've said so far, it doesn't have to be illustrative, doesn't have to
>have a solid base in traditional drawing, shouldn't be accompanied by lots
>of waffle to promote it and yet can be as banal, tacky and sterile as the
>products of Disney, the man/company who rewrite history/myth to remove all
>the nasty bits.
Disney is original, surreal, abstract and completely modern in color
ideas and composition. Any five minutes of a good Mickey Mouse cartoon
contains more skill than Most Artzy Fartzies can muster in a lifetime.
>
>If you're going to try and put the world to rights, which would explain why
>you go on like you're on a mission, how can you expect to do that if you
>don't tell people what your vision of skill is. At present it would appear
>you are merely playing games to hide your sheer self-rightousness and
>obscure the lack of substance at the empty centre of your arguments, a trick
>neatly executed by the artspeak-spinners you put down so often. If you have
>such a clear vision of what you believe in and are so superior then why, oh
>Mani our saviour, don't you actually produce something with it, take the
>world by storm and make the world see the truth instead of sitting on your
>arse trying to sell self-promotionary books and spending lots of time online
>saying everything is shit?
>
I like the last sentence of this religious conclusion. The logic of it
is that anyone who doesn't like what you like says "everything is
shit."
I have no mission, I'm here because I enjoy the fray.
Furthermore, the more Artzy Fartzies like you around, the more work
for those who know their craft.
>> Well then get a degree and try for a job on that basis.
Haven't needed a job since I was 16. Are you having a hard time
finding one?
>> Unfortunately, you believe the baloney you were told in art school.
>
>Wrong, I ignore the balony I get forced on me at art school, produce the
>minimum amount of work necessary to fulfill their criteria then go off and
>produce work to my criteria.
So what are you crabbing about?
>> I've seen years worth of artwork by failures who think they can draw.
>> They spend their lives wondering why nobody else thinks so.
>
>Ah, that's the difference between me and them then, I know I can't draw, but
>I don't particularly care...
>
Best of luck!
>
>no skill... no art... but what is skill..? and what is art..?
You won't find out in art school.
James W. Foster
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
> When you quote me I would appreciate it if you would mention my name.
> I wrote:
What? For people so lacking in intelligence they can't deduce who the
quotes were by by looking at the last message in the string? Or do you just
like reading your name Mani?
Okay, for all those of you who don't understand and are the type of people
who need warnings on packets of peanuts saying "This product contains nuts",
this is a reply from me JAMES to MANI. Any questions?
> I guess you have time to waste.
A little, for now.
>
> Referring to Allison's schmiers I wrote:
> Its possible. But its doubtful. I suspect that Alison shows the best
> she can do. There's nothing to stop her to proving me wrong.
But why should she? At the end of the day no-one needs to prove anything to
you. Just as you don't need to prove anything to us.
> I "slag off" Modern Academic Bullshit. Modern Abstract Art is neither
> original, modern or of interest to most people. Abstraction is all
> around us.
But nothing is original or modern any more. What we now take for
'creativity' is so inbred. Whatever new big thing that sweeps away the
festering dregs of postmodernism won't be borne out of what people currently
accept as art, it'll be something that happens outside the art establishment
and bursts out of the underground like the acid house scene of the late
'80s. The only way for it to gain acceptance will be for it to be talked
about, and that's where it will be nurured and fuelled by academia, which
will eventually grow to suffocate it and the cycle will repeat yet again.
>
> >You like to pontificate at length
> >on the lack of skill around you and yet have single-handledly failed to
> >provide anyone with a clue of what you consider to be 'skill'.
>
> I guess you don't know what skill is.
Very childish. You've got a secret that us normal folk can't possibly know.
If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd tell us.
>
> >Going by
> >what you've said so far, it doesn't have to be illustrative, doesn't have
to
> >have a solid base in traditional drawing, shouldn't be accompanied by
lots
> >of waffle to promote it and yet can be as banal, tacky and sterile as the
> >products of Disney, the man/company who rewrite history/myth to remove
all
> >the nasty bits.
>
> Disney is original, surreal, abstract and completely modern in color
> ideas and composition. Any five minutes of a good Mickey Mouse cartoon
> contains more skill than Most Artzy Fartzies can muster in a lifetime.
Mickey mouse was generations ago. All they do now is saccharine
crowd-pleasers (albeit very well executed ones).
> >
> I like the last sentence of this religious conclusion. The logic of it
> is that anyone who doesn't like what you like says "everything is
> shit."
Not so, you're trying to put words in my mouth with the subtlety of a
tabloid journalist. I don't for one second assume that anyone who doesn't
like what I like says "everything is shit." Far from it, I completely
recognize that as everyone is an individual they are bound to like different
things. I hate a lot of abstract art and figurative art in good measure.
Just because I don't like Rembrandt, I don't think he was a crap artist or
that people who like him have poor taste, just different. The point I was
making, was about the way you chip in every so often in various threads just
to say things in a similar vein to 'well so and so was an incompetant artist
anyway' or 'well you produce shit anyway' or 'not that you'd know what
skill is' or whatever, with the horrible smugness of a self-important
cynicist. At the end of the day, you're not being productive or
constructive, just overwhelmingly negative.
>
> I have no mission, I'm here because I enjoy the fray.
And you know what, so am I. It's great isn't it?
> Furthermore, the more Artzy Fartzies like you around, the more work
> for those who know their craft.
Hey, every master's gotta employ servants...
> Haven't needed a job since I was 16. Are you having a hard time
> finding one?
Haven't bothered looking. You haven't needed a job since you were 16 eh?
Marry a rich lass did we? Win the lottery?
> So what are you crabbing about?
I'd like to be able to come out of lectures feeling as though I've actually
learnt something. I don't want to regard teachers the same way I regard
politicians or most of the doctors I've ever had.
> Best of luck!
There's no such thing. What 'luck' you have you make for yourself, one way
or another.
> >no skill... no art... but what is skill..? and what is art..?
>
> You won't find out in art school.
Probably not.
-james
James W. Foster
Kay <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote in message
news:MNkE3.6624$_x1.1...@news5.giganews.com...
You are absolutely right. I think I'll stop wasting time on this thread and
get back to my studies.
-james
Chris
Sorry it took so long to get back to this one; I just wanted to make a
comment on one statement you made:
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
> of no MFA programs that don't require a portfolio. But here's the catch,
> rejects in programs such as UC Davis' can fail just as much for a strong
> portfilio as a weak one. The faculty there, when it reviews applications
> every year (and about one percent make it) always ask the question "will this
> student benefit by our program?" An outstanding portfilio leads to rejects,
> since it is thought that the applicant doesn't really need the program.
> Irony, right?
>
I think that's neat; it moves my respect for UC (at least parts of it)
up yet another notch! I couldn't imagine most Canadian schools doing
this - even at the grad level, their funding is mostly driven by a body
count, and they don't depend on donations from happy alumni (at least as
heavily as the US schools do.)
Perhaps it helps avoid one of the saddest tings one comes across (at
least in the sciences)- the students (particularly at the post-doc
level) that can't let go, & who are often marking time until they can
find a safe teaching position. (Note that I'm NOT talking about all
grads; many know exactly where they are going and are seizing the
opportunity to do so.) As a group I'd characterize them by being
extremely bright, not very self-directed, and highly uncertain of their
own capabilities. Perhaps what's lacking is that "I'm the greatest"
organ that Marilyn mentions in another post! In any case, the rude
awakening given by getting the boot can be quite the tonic.
Cheers;
Chris
Erik A. Mattila
> Rrik;
>
> Sorry it took so long to get back to this one; I just wanted to make a
> comment on one statement you made:
Better late than never, Chris -
>
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> >
>
> > of no MFA programs that don't require a portfolio. But here's the catch,
> > rejects in programs such as UC Davis' can fail just as much for a strong
> > portfilio as a weak one. The faculty there, when it reviews applications
> > every year (and about one percent make it) always ask the question "will this
> > student benefit by our program?" An outstanding portfilio leads to rejects,
> > since it is thought that the applicant doesn't really need the program.
> > Irony, right?
UCD is unique among the UC system. (but the distinction is lessening with time).
Around 1965 (I think) the Art Department Director, Ralph Nelson, made an
unprecedented move to hire faculty from the streets rather than academia. You
know, some of the crituque leveled against art faculty being something other than
practicisng artists has a basis in fact, although it is a bit dated. Prior to the
late sixties, the 'publish or perish' axiom didn't apply much to art faculties,
but that is quite different now. Anyway, Nelson distinguished the department on
this basis. Other art departments in the UC system are busy finding some sort of
niche also -- for example UC San Diego was very early in developing an MFA program
for computer graphics. But here's the reality as far as the public charter is
concerned. California's government regards the entertainment industry as a major
economic force, and subsequently curriculum development in the arts addresses the
needs of this industry. So you can see, and you will continue to see, more
curriculum development in fine arts programs that are geared for qualifying
graduates for fat positions at Pixar, Sony Pictures, Industrial Light and Magic
and so on. But campuses like UC Davis will continue with a purer approach to fine
arts, and continue pumping out MFAs who are going to be looking for jobs teaching
art and playing the art gallery lottery.
> I think that's neat; it moves my respect for UC (at least parts of it)
> up yet another notch! I couldn't imagine most Canadian schools doing
> this - even at the grad level, their funding is mostly driven by a body
> count, and they don't depend on donations from happy alumni (at least as
> heavily as the US schools do.)
I'm surprised - but it may be just a matter of numbers. UC Davis wouldn't be this
way if there were 20 applicants for 15 slots, of course. There's normally three
or four hundred applicants each year. Any Canadian schools that has distinguished
itself with an outstanding faculty would likely be able to be quite selective
also.
> Perhaps it helps avoid one of the saddest tings one comes across (at
> least in the sciences)- the students (particularly at the post-doc
> level) that can't let go, & who are often marking time until they can
> find a safe teaching position. (Note that I'm NOT talking about all
> grads; many know exactly where they are going and are seizing the
> opportunity to do so.) As a group I'd characterize them by being
> extremely bright, not very self-directed, and highly uncertain of their
> own capabilities. Perhaps what's lacking is that "I'm the greatest"
> organ that Marilyn mentions in another post! In any case, the rude
> awakening given by getting the boot can be quite the tonic.
The grad student's routine can become an inescaple lifestyle, yes. Personally, I
got really tired of it quickly, I loved research and libraries, and 'thinking' in
general, but I was quite disenchanted with the people I rubbed elbows with on a
daily basis. "I'm the greatest" indeed. But hell, Chris, that's what it's all
about. And the prestige of the institution, which ultimately rests on the
accomplishments of its faculty, only magnifies 'the unbearable heaviness of being"
in academia. Probably the common experience of grad students, across the board,
is to ultimately find him/herself transfixed by the pikes of viciously competing
faculty members. Geez, the department wars I found myself in were 'take no
enemies' sort ot things - go directly to the throat! When I finally got tossed
out without a degree, as punishment for the alliances I made, it was like a great
weight lifted from my back.
Best,
Erik
Chris
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
[...alot of interesting things re UC..]
> enemies' sort ot things - go directly to the throat! When I finally got tossed
> out without a degree, as punishment for the alliances I made, it was like a great
> weight lifted from my back.
>
So then I'm in good company! I got the boot about a year into my PhD
program..was thoroughly depressed for a couple of hours, & then realized
what a chance I had actually been (inadvertently) handed, & decided to
make the most of it.
But getting back to the school system - James mentions in another post
his concerns re. the dropping of standards, and Blair's proposed changes
to the educational strucuture, which James thinks would make it less
"elitist" (BTW James - there's a big difference between elitism built on
school ties, and elitism built on accomplishments). It neatly
contradicts Alison's rhetorical question as to whether the British
University system could be considered repressive, because it is
supposedly a "right" for all.
But how can any system be considered non-repressive when the very
tracking procedure that streams students towards (or away) from
university is done at an early age and is based on pretty arbitrary
measures like the O and A levels (& for those with interest in the
issue, some study of the dubious nature of Cyril Burt's work - on which
the testing system is based - is in order). I noticed Alison still
mentions them on her resume, I assume they still mean something over
there. FWIW, a close fiend spent a good deal of time in Scotland during
the eighties; the one aspect she mentions alot is the the appalling
conformity that is inflicted on school children, relative even to
Canadian schools. My own experience working in Bristol in the early 70's
would confirm this (with bright kids from bad backgrounds streamed out
of school and into horribly paid apprenticeships, at the age of 14) had
it been more recent; perhaps Alison or James could fill us in on the
changes there.
Personally, I think the issue is deeper - it gets down to the the old
saw that he who pays the piper calls the tune. When any single body -
church, state, business - is the overwhelming source of income for an
institutional culture, it will eventually dominate it and try to direct
that culture in its own image. It's one reason why I find the relatively
chaotic nature of the American university system (and some of the recent
charter school movements) attractive.
Cheers;
Chris
Chris
"James W. Foster" wrote:
>
>
> I should point out that in the UK at least Higher Education arts courses
> involve something like the third highest amounts of lecture time (including
> studio practice, lectures, seminars, visual studies and the like). I think
> it was only medical and engineering degrees that came higher. My
> recollection is a bit vague so I'm open to correction, but that was the
> general gist of the report last year.
>
Geez, James - longer lectures just mean more time to sleep! Notice that
medical,engineering, and fine arts are in general the best partiers
too....And secondly, the number of courses you are required to take may
indicate that you are simply coming from further behind, rather than
going further ahead :) It reminds me of the engineers I went to school
with, who used to crow about taking ethics, until it was pointed out
that most others were expected to already have a working knowledge of
that before they went to university...
> Meanwhile, as far as elitism goes, life is elitist. If you're crap, you
> don't succeed, if you aren't, you do.
Well, I guess that's why the British need to import Canadians &
Australians to run their papers for them & tell them what to think,
while hanging off the Amercans to keep their economy afloat. And do I
see a burgeoning market for Big Macs?
Personally, I think of Maynard Keynes as the quintessential British
elitist, whose primary contribution to the world consisted of showing
governments how to do to their populace what he enjoyed doing to young
boys...
Anyway, keep at it James; with that attitude the wonderful world of a
minor post in the civil service awaits :)
Cheers;
Chris
Kay
Chris wrote:
:
:Geez, James - longer lectures just mean more time to sleep!
To me, longer lectures meant that my hand would cramp up from writing more
notes. I never slept in class. The ones who did usually weren't around at
the end of the semester.
: Notice that
:medical,engineering, and fine arts are in general the best partiers
:too....
I'll take your word on it. I know the art students are but I would think
that the med. & engineering students were more serious about life. Then
again, I didn't know any med./eng. majors...
And secondly, the number of courses you are required to take may
:indicate that you are simply coming from further behind, rather than
:going further ahead :)
(?) Uncertain what you mean here. It could also mean that he is trying to
finish his degree in 3-4 years instead of 5 or maybe have a double major or
perhaps take a few grad-level courses in his senior year.
: It reminds me of the engineers I went to school
:with, who used to crow about taking ethics, until it was pointed out
:that most others were expected to already have a working knowledge of
:that before they went to university...
Good point!
:
:Anyway, keep at it James; with that attitude the wonderful world of a
:minor post in the civil service awaits :)
Chris, why would you put a smiley face at the end of the above paragraph? It
is a horrible insult to James. James is very young, obviously intelligent
and his art is dynamite. Some very successful artists have good attitudes
and some have very bad attitudes. Attitudes aren't what the patron buys.
Besides, I've seen James attitude as very pleasant, so like art - "in the
eyes of the beholder."
Kay
:
:Cheers;
:
:Chris
Chris
Kay wrote:
> :
> :Anyway, keep at it James; with that attitude the wonderful world of a
> :minor post in the civil service awaits :)
>
> Chris, why would you put a smiley face at the end of the above paragraph? It
> is a horrible insult to James. James is very young, obviously intelligent
> and his art is dynamite. Some very successful artists have good attitudes
> and some have very bad attitudes. Attitudes aren't what the patron buys.
> Besides, I've seen James attitude as very pleasant, so like art - "in the
> eyes of the beholder."
I guees that when I hear phrases like James' :
" Meanwhile, as far as elitism goes, life is elitist. If you're crap,
you
don't succeed, if you aren't, you do."
I have to question his native intelligence. Perhaps you find the
statement pleasant, or simply amusing - but from my experience those who
are willing to partition broad classes of people solely by their
circumstances don't wind up getting very far.
The smiley was put there because I think - at least I hope - his
statement was more a case of late-teen bravado or perhaps a lack of
experience, rather than just plain stupidity.
He's free to defend it, if he chooses.
Cheers;
Chris
Erik A. Mattila
> - but from my experience those who
> are willing to partition broad classes of people solely by their
> circumstances don't wind up getting very far.
I don't understand why you feel this way, Chris. There are, after all, only
three (3) classes of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who
can't.
Regards,
Erik
Chris
clicked.
Thanks;
Chris
Erik A. Mattila
Erik
Chris
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
> Which suggests that we speak to one another from the same class, right?
>
If you mean the one the conductor doesn't even bother coming down too,
your probably right!
Cheers;
Chris