How important should an ART EDUCATION be?

[stoopidgerl]

So I got into this debate yesterday with a couple of my photo geek

friends. We were debating over whether or not an art education is a

crucial element to a career (or life) of art-making.

And then I brought up the issue of outsider-art. My friends dismiss it

as art because there was no art education to back up the artist's

intentions.<br>

<br>

I don't think that an art education and strong background in art

history should be a pre-requisite or be relevent to the process and

production of art.<br>

<br>

How do you feel about this?

[shadetree407]

art education and creating art are not correlated. you do not need education in art education to create art. go tell your friends this: well if you say so, then it must be true, to you.

[elliot_n]

Jeff Wall

[michael_bach2]

All education is important.

 

If you want to work with art it is good to know what art is, and what you can

use art too. Any education gives you a platform to develop from, if it will give

you an career or life of art-making is a difrent thing, but to learn is not bad.

 

And a art school / education, gives you a net-work and and in-sighter

knowledge that is good to have in the art world as well.

 

And it looks good on paper.........

 

www.micbach.dk...................."Photography workshops in Spain"

[steve_dawson1]

"My friends dismiss it as art because there was no art education to back up the artist's intentions"

 

The artist's intentions are irrelevant, as is everything else to do with their state of mind - education, drug addiction, ..whatever. If that were not the case works of art could suddenly acquire greater artistic value if it became known that the artist was more 'educated' than was previously thought. The value of a work of art must lie in and of itself.

 

That is not to say that education doesn't make an artist into a better arist, but the value of what they produce is in the artefacts themselves not in their mind when they produced it. Otherwise one is saying that only part of the value of any work of art lies in the work itself, and the rest lies in some assessment of the skills/knowledge/intention of the artist.

[rdkirk]

The artist's intentions are irrelevant?

 

While it's fairly easy to say such things in visual art, how well does that statement hold up in other art forms? How irrelevant is the artist's intention in a novel, a sonnet, or a play? How irrelevant was Holst's intentions in Die Planets?

[beauh44]

Hmmm... Did Leonardo Da Vinci go to art school? I always thought he was largely self-taught. Did Ansel Adams take a photography class? Piano lessons maybe... ;-)

[beeman458]

" I don't think that an art education and strong background in art history should be a pre-requisite or be relevent to the process and production of art."

 

Context is a horrible thing to waste..... unless you like stumbling around in the dark. And then again, when ignorant, one has the pleasure of not knowing they're stumbling around in the dark cause they're protected by their ego, vanity and ignorance:)

 

Of the two roads, ignorance and intelligence, the hardest road to walk, is the one of intelligence. Why? Because that road requires a continuing effort:)

[yann_r.]

Opened-mind is really needed to "product" art. Don't think education is necessary. Can be helpfull but can also catch your mind in one way if this education is not "large" and objective enough.

[steve_dawson1]

The artists intention may govern the novel that they write; but it is the novel that they write (regardless of their intention) which should be judged as a work of art. For example, Joseph Heller may have intended to write the definitive novel on the futility and insanity of war across the ages as manifested in one particular arena, or he may have intended to write a witty novel about some airman in Italy. I don't know. I don't care. It doesn't matter. He wrote a novel and that's what should be judged. Drawing inferences about what he intended is pointless, the question is: what did he say?. Inferring the artists intention may be interesting, but is ultimately likely to be futile. what counts is what is on the page.

[madro]

Art education is only important if you want to buy/resell art. To create art you dont need any. For selling art are your marketing skills more important than your art education. For most galleries, it is more important that you already demonstrated your marketing skills in form of a few sold art pieces than whether your art piece is art. If your art sells, then the gallery will figure out why it is also good from art history point of view -- gallery people have after all mostly some art education.<p>

Art education is necessary if you want to teach -- unless your are a well known artist, in which case it is better for the school to have you because you help to sell their education programs that are executed by people who teach because they couldnt sell a single art piece that they created.

[stoopidgerl]

great... keep them coming!

and THANKS!

[beeman458]

" I don't think that an art education and strong background in art history should be a pre-requisite or be relevent to the process and production of art.

 

How do you feel about this?"

 

---------------------------------

 

To explore this question a bit further, let's turn the question into a generalized question then.

 

Does anybody really need an education? I mean by trial and error, I'm sure one could become a very fine brain surgeon, with enough "practice" or course. Who wants to be the first? :) When does it become necessary to require a shingle.

 

How comfortable would you be with someone working on your car, no education? Do you think a shade tree mechanic should be allowed to charge for their efforts? Where's the line between hack and professional?

 

Much of what I read has to do with disrespect towards the arts cause in real terms, sans an acceptable definition, one doesn't "really" need an "education" to be an artist. The less respect one has, the less education one requires of the performer. Sadly, the more educated I become in the photographic arts, the more respectful I become. Why sadly, cause disrespectful is easy:)

 

Do you require a "blow-and-go" guy to be educated in order to mow your lawn? Nope? Okay, then when in your life do you feel an education is required and why? Are you willing to pay a person what they're worth if they're licensed, bonded, insured and pay all their taxes in order to be a "blow-and-go" guy? What are your professional standards and what is your character; responsibility?

 

"We were debating over whether or not an art education is a crucial element to a career (or life) of art-making."

 

No, an "artist" (artisan) doesn't need an education in order to create "wares" that they can make a living at by selling to the generalized public at "Arts and Crafts" (wares) fairs. But in my case, the more educated I am, the more satisfied my efforts become for me.

 

A question for your "photo geek friends;" what sort of "art" are they creating; calender (cliche) art, "Art and Wine" "art" (wares) to hang on a wall gathering dust somewhere or "art" which transends commercial calender, decorative art that's been embued with content?

 

How will they know what they're creating or is this a case of arrogance in that they don't care; disrespect?

 

Does one need an education in order to know what they're doing or does it only matter if it's your ox that's being gored? :)

[daniel_ob]

It looks to me that to many it is so easy to say I want to make "Art", or, mom from now on I am artist... Whatever they make it is art ("... well it is my art").

I know a guy he once did repear on his car himself: is he top engineer?

A=B and B=C now A=C am I Platon?

And it is very common case with photographers. Just buy used Canon camera.

To be artist is veeeery difficult and hard work, and nearly always do not get expected return, at least while alive. So many nice artists cannot read this just because they cannot afford a computer (or no time) and cannot pay hydro bill.

 

Any education is not established to be a must. But if you know where you go education will enlighten your way. Otherwise you will be stumbling around in the darkness.

When you go to REAL (not two weeks) Academy of art you will learn so many rules, years, applying in some specific discipline of art. And just when happy picking up diploma getting to the door leads outside the academy building, your favorite professor says lifting his right arm: ?hey you, there is no rule, there is no such things as art, there are only artists. You will find no help outside there, you are alone from now on and do not forget rules I gave you " That moment your eyes will squeeze and you will push wrinkled diploma into your pocket. But to really understand it, a long way is in front.

 

Yes some guys did not go into school to learn.... but they are not common guys. Jesus Christ did not have an Leather Oxford Bible but he quoted it (... it is written...). Ansel did not learn in school about the zone system, and so on. Well the school is to teach what they did. And their brain works in a little different way that in common guys. If you are like that rare guy I tell you do not loose time learning from someone knows less that you.

So why some still go with art if it so difficult. Simple: call of wild. It is a way of thinking it is a way of acceptance. And it so amazing thing to watch artist at work.

[daniel_ob]

I have to add and this part:

Getting diploma from the best state's Academy of art do not guaranty you are artist. I have to say that I saw bad work of soo many promising guys completing top education in art, and I saw nice work of guys without such education. But there is some (statistical) data who are producing the best work, beside artists. It is usually high educated guy, like doctors, engineers, lawers,? Why, I newer studied such a think.

[karl_price]

" I don't think that an art education and strong background in art history should be a pre-requisite or be relevent to the process and production of art."

 

I think the missing part of this stement might be "In all cases"

 

Such as:

I don't think in all cases that an art education and strong background in art history should be a pre-requisite or be relevent to the process and production of art.

 

If your argument for being able to produce anything is that an education and a background in the "history of" is necessary, then nothing new can ever be invented, created or made because in order to do it you would have to have an education that hadn't been invented yet. Weird logic but solid.

 

Does it help? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. And I agree with the previous poster that it's not a gaurantee.

 

There's also some confusion in the statement between formal education and informal education. As most of us know, when you start down the path of photgraphy for almost any aim (art, profession, hobby), at least an informal education begins and quite often more formal training is sought.

[eugene_scherba]

<p>Formal art education should be more important than it is right

now.</p>

 

<p>To set the cards straight, that's coming from someone who doesn't

have a formal art education. I don't think this should be discussed

further.</p>

[beeman458]

"I don't think this should be discussed further."

 

Aaaaaah, isn't that up to others who wish to post here?

[oceanphysics]

Define education.

<p>

The more time I've spent in school (and it's been such a very long time) the more I question the basic value of a formal education in just about anything. There are a few fields (brain surgery, particle physics) that are so complex that formal education is the only real option, but art certainly doesn't fall into that category. But education doesn't necessarily equate to formal education.

<p>

<i>I don't think this should be discussed further.</i>

<p>

Tough.

<p>

[michael_bach2]

I find art and filosofi to be the to most complex professions of all. And I think

that the base in the to, is method and dialog. You ned a working method to

make art / work, and you ned to put you work / art in to a dialog. To develop a

method you ned som kind of education and to have a dialog you ned a

educated audience.

 

www.micbach.dk.............."Art Photography workshops in Spain"

[byronlawrence]

art is not a profession.

 

art is not a science.

 

art is different to each person... like religion. you can study art you can attempt to make art.

 

to me art is anything you put a lot of effort into making beautiful. self expression is a side effect. like a bmw can be art or a very well maintained garden, or a very well done reef aquarium. old cars are art, but did the maker intend for them to be? and did they go to art school?

 

so no, education is NOT a pre-requisite for creating art. and personally I think people who think otherwise are trying for an elitist view to help themselves feel important. people who give themselves to the study of art should be admired, though. Not because they received a few classes but for what they create... if they create anything.

[byronlawrence]

also as a side note for education in general:

 

education is not a necessary thing for anything to be done, but it is a way of learning a bunch of stuff in a compressed period of time from poeple who ideally already know what you are trying to learn. it saves time from learning via trial and error over an extended period of time.

 

so for art if you plan to make a career of it and make it your life then education can certainly help a lot.

[eugene_scherba]

I think ocean physics doesn't require formal education.

[peter_nelson1]

I think education is ESSENTIAL to do <b>anything</b> well - it doesn't matter if it's brain-surgery, carpentry or painting. Art education doesn't have to be FORMAL education - you can learn a lot in a library or online - but you DO have to be educated.<P>

 

Almost all the greatest artists in past history - by which I mean artists who could create art that stood the test of time and spoke to people outside their own meilieu - were extensively educated in it - some in school, some at the feet of masters or as apprentices.<P>

 

Some artists today achieve notoriety with controversy or sheer wackiness. And "outsider art" usually refers to the art of people who are not just outside the academy, but outside of the world of the fully rational - people who suffer various kinds of personality or social disorders that they express through their art. Self-taught artists who paint in a classical style and exhibit in conventional galleries are not usually referred-to as outsider artists.<P>

 

Look at today's artists. How many of them will still be remembered in a few centuries the way we (well, at least those of us who have an art ducation) remember Vermeer, Velasquez, Rubens, etc? I'll bet the ones that produce work well enough to get remembered are the educated ones.

[byronlawrence]

but that is more a correlation between people who are intellegent and have interest in art that happen to take measures to learn to improve. not a fixed this has to be, before that.

 

in the ideal you don't NEED and education before you are an 'artist'... but as you pointed out it does help and you are more likely to be successful. but that raises the question are the people who become educated in these things good naturally or where they only good After they received their education? and if they hadn't been educated would they have ever reached the same level of greatness?

 

also education in the basic sense of the word covers anything you learn that isn't instinctual. so in that sense, 'education' is required before you can do ANY art. so to clarify I speak of education in the formal sense .. school, apprenticeship,, etc.