Jump to content

How important should an ART EDUCATION be?


Recommended Posts

Dear Daniel,

 

I'd totally agree about the value of good academies. What I'd question is how many good academies there are. From all I've heard in 30+ years (and as I say, I chose law school over art school, but a lot of my friends chose art school) I suspect that there are depressingly few; almost none. I suspect that you may be from outside the UK/USA and I know that some countries teach what I might consider a more useful curriculum -- China for a start.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Roger, you asked how does the education make the art more credible. Of course you are right, the work has to stand on its own feet - ideally. But if you know consiously that the maker has had an education you tend to give more credit to the maker. There may be a fully competent medical school drop out, but you wont let him treat you, right? Another argument is that, and this is often true IMO, education cleans out the naive errors.<p>

I don't have art education nor do I think my photos are art no more than I am an artist. The legendary car photog Rene Staud said to me once that he does not think his work is art, but handwork with elements of art. I think he is right. The photo itself is only a document of a situation. The situation itself may have required quite a lot of artistic skills. But if you go and shoot a sunset where is the artistic input. It's been given by mother nature, exposure is simple, almost like truism. Compositions - they are all copies of similar shots.<p>

I attended to a photography workshop a couple years ago. The tutor was the number one portrait shooter in Finland and certainly I learned a lot, it was a fast leap forwards.<p>

The most important thing, by far the most important thing, is to enjoy photography. If shooting brings pleasure, the rest is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Thomas,

 

You have thought harder and deeper about this than I; I wish I could print out JUST your response (rather than wasting 10 sheets of paper) to study it more closely. I see nothing to argue with, though I might be inclined to accord more weight to the Pre-Raphaelites (but then, I used to live in Birchington, where as you no doubt know Dante Gabriel Rosetti is buried) and I'd probably be more concerned with the Linked Ring and then later with the Adams-Mortensen divide rather after the initial formation of f/64: the difference between a beginning and a decisive split. I have to confess with head hung in shame that I have no clear recollection of Steichen's milk bottle.

 

You are right, this is all fascinating. What depresses me is that no doubt we shall be the target of 'Get A Life' posts; but as JFK said, those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.

 

If we are too boring for the thread perhaps we may later correspond privately. Or (with any luck -- the internet has to be good for something) others may join in.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...I wish I could print out JUST your response (rather than wasting 10 sheets of paper) to study it more closely."

 

It's simple, do a copy and paste to your e-mail screen and then do a print of the e-mail screen:D

 

"I see nothing to argue with, though I might be inclined to accord more weight to the Pre-Raphaelites (but then, I used to live in Birchington, where as you no doubt know Dante Gabriel Rosetti is buried)"

 

I do now:) But the Pre-Raphaelites were more just an thumb-in-the-eye of the contemporary authority, "Testing and defying all conventions of art;..." as opposed to a split of religious moral values.

 

http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/prb/1.html

 

"and I'd probably be more concerned with the Linked Ring..."

 

Below are three links that ties everything together very nicely.

 

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/royal_ph.htm

 

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/linked_r.htm

 

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/photo_se.htm

 

Hence why the mention of Stieglitz because of the politics involved.

 

"...and then later with the Adams-Mortensen divide rather after the initial formation of f/64: the difference between a beginning and a decisive split."

 

Ya got me on the Adams-Mortensen divide. I'll have to google it up and see what I can find.

 

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mortensen/mortensen.html

 

I see the same sort of split between Stieglitz and Weston. I have no trouble with manipulating an image as to me, it's about the final image, not the process that gets you there.

 

A very illuminating photo.net thread with some inside skinny by someone who knew Will personally.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005fZU

 

Nothing beats the web and a good search engine.

 

"I have to confess with head hung in shame that I have no clear recollection of Steichen's milk bottle."

 

It's a most obscure image, which few might recognize for it's historical importance.

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/steichen/steichen_milk_bottles_full.html

 

"What depresses me is that no doubt we shall be the target of 'Get A Life' posts;..."

 

Not to worry as the folks here are a dichotomy of that's some pretty good stuff to the otherside of the coin, the "Prove it cause it conflicts with their bias's gang." :)

 

"If we are too boring for the thread perhaps we may later correspond privately."

 

I stopped by your site; Wowser's! :) I'm just a dummy by comparison.:)

 

This location is the sum total of any of my philosophical outpourings as opposed to your many book writings and articles.

 

FYI, my photographic efforts reflect my understanding of photographic history, should you choose to stop by. Will look forward to more of your comments here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"really I don't see how bringing up bridges as art in the first place has anything to do with the original question. they are beautiful structures IMO but they require years of education and experience and working with teams of other people with the same, to design. and art degrees aren't necessary to design them. it doesn't really support or show evidence against whether you need education to create art".

 

I am sorry but I fill tears in my eyes from laughing. I am really sorry.

 

Just to make it short. Art extends into A-N-Y human's activities. Write it down and then write down where you 'v wrote it down.

 

Just could not resist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And what about all the flywheels that were cast with straight spokes that we see which were cast in the same time period? What kept them from cracking?"

 

THOMAS I cannot read all but is this question should point on someting else?

Anyway I accept as direct question and answer is:

 

When Cast Iron is formed it cools down to room temperature. In that way it schrinks. Rim and hub get solid first and now spokes start to silidify. The spokes are fixed to the rim and the hub and when schrink due to cooling (tends to get shorter) it induces "residual" streses inside the spoke. How big are that stresses depend of mass distribution along the rim, the spokes, and the hub. Sometimes that stress is enough that cracks spoke imidiately. Sometimes that inner stress is less than strength of the Cast Iron and just stay there. With time, due to such stress, spokes slowly stretch ("creaping") increasing stress until it crack. Curved spokes are there to accomodate for such stretching.

 

"Nothing is new under the Sun".

Sorry if it was not real meaning of your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this Engineering class?

 

"Thomas: some engineers are true creative artists. Others use data without questioning its validity. Luckily artists usually can't kill people with their product. Engineers can: here's a sample"

 

That bridge, and many of other crashed due to side buckling, problem not known at the time. Now comes long story, and if you wish it I will give you the story.

 

Put 1000 of people on ANY bridge in the world, let them run in phase and the bridge WILL crash. Did you see huge ship split in two due to small wave. Did you see your car antena sometimes vibrates abnormaly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Juha,

 

I don't really see the parallel. I go to a doctor and ask him to do something for me: I cannot see his expertise, so a degree is a (fairly poor) substitute. If I knew he had a hundred per cent cure rate I wouldn't care about his degree. By contrast a work of art (unless commissioned) already exists -- and if commissioned, surely you commission on the basis of previous work, regardless of education?

 

As for cleaning out naive errors, I take the cynical and unkind view that a lot of teachers introduce naive errors in all sorts of fields. This is perhaps because years ago I qualified as a teacher (secondary school) and didn't have a very high opinion of maybe half my fellow teachers: "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

 

A good teacher -- maybe 30 per cent of the teaching population -- is wonderful; but art school needs both good teachers and (as Daniel says) willing pupils. A depressing number of students at art schools are there because they couldn't think of anything else to do, or it was the next stage on the conveyor belt, or it was a soft option (these criticisms are true of other schools as well). Some of them graduate and go on to teach...

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Thomas,

 

What a wonderful history of overreactions! I always found the Linked Ring/Photo Secession muddy; their best pictures succeeded despite their technique, not because of it, and many failed that would have been better if they had not had such a taking against techical excellence. I see absolutely what you mean about the milk bottle; thanks for the link. Most of the other information I was reasonably familiar with but there are always details to fill in and the correspondence about Mortensen was particularly illuminating.

 

Then, of course, f/64 ended up setting such store by technique that once again, their best shots succeed despite technique: many are dull and derivative because, and even the best (Ansel Adams) are often sterile.

 

Then it went COMPLETELY crazy after WW2... Due in large part, I think, to the rise of the 'art-school ethic' where more meant worse. When there were relatively few art schools, most who attended them really wanted to be there and most lecturers were at least fairly competent practising artists. Now it's an easy stopping-off place between school and work (and as Daniel says, useless as a passport to a job) the only possibility was to intellectualize art far beyond its capacity to be intellectualized.

 

In the 70s, when I started as an assistant, my 'gaffer' (the late Colin Glanfield) regarded art school training as a handicap to be overcome, not an advantage; he would always hire someone with another background if he could, hence me (law/teaching), Jan (musician), Tim (helicopter pilot) etc.

 

It's fair to say that this was commercial work (advertising) but kidding ANYONE that art school will turn them into a producer of Fine Art is a cruel deception.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A depressing number of students at art schools are there because they couldn't think of anything else to do"

 

I studied engineering too. On the very first meting in amphitheater of the faculty, Rector came to bless students and said: "GOOD MORNING FUTURE ENGINEERS AND LAWERS". I do not joke, it is not someone's saying, it is was really like that. All laughed and he started to jump around hitting his hat against the floor. He asked one guy ?why you laugh me?. "Because no lawyer here" Then Rector started to laugh.... After 6 months meting again, and just around 20% of students was there. Rest are gone to somewhere else to study Law, quit, ...

 

Very simmilar happen on Art Academy. And from that 20% just a quarter gets to final examination. End from that quarter just some are ?good.? Well it was in time around 1980 and university where I studied. Very similar is (or was) all around. So, no one should generalize education. It might helps but in most cases NOOOOOOO. Bull in school bull out. Education is PREREQUEST. Learning is to come. Well the story gets long and stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger, about the teachers. You are absolutely right. i always say that you can not learn charisma. Its something you either have or don't. No amount of educatino makes a charisma-less person a good teacher but a not educated craftsman with natural charisma can charm the whole audience.<p>

 

Don't bypass what I said last: The most important thing is to enjoy photography. Satisfaction is the key word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you have talent you use it...... "

in front of the photoshop thinking you deal with Photography just because you fell that photons from the light bulb pouding you head.

 

"If not you become a Art Teacher...sort of spread your lack of talent."

 

and here right ABOVE you is Mr. Roger H. having no comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"really I don't see how bringing up bridges as art in the first place has anything to do with the original question. they are beautiful structures IMO but they require years of education and experience and working with teams of other people with the same, to design. and art degrees aren't necessary to design them. it doesn't really support or show evidence against whether you need education to create art".

 

I am sorry but I fill tears in my eyes from laughing. I am really sorry.

 

Just to make it short. Art extends into A-N-Y human's activities. Write it down and then write down where you 'v wrote it down.

 

Just could not resist.

 

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

 

but art is not art education. read all the words. I said an art degree is not required to design a bridge. can you dispute that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B. Lawrence

 

on Architectural faculty students learn about art hystory too, but not in extend as on Art Academy, and on Academy students learn art history but not about strength of materials as on Architectural faculty,....

 

The guy made that wheel Mr. Gardiner shows on the pic: question is did he went to Academy of Art before he made it? Can you (or anyone else) answer? .... The question is also why we need an answer?

 

The good cook make art work (yes), but he do not have "education". That is true. There is a big confusion about art in general, or better to say about art photography for it is all we talk about. The whole problem is that no one WANT (me too for now) to reveal definition of art photography. In that way everyone have its own definition and everyone can say my definition is better than your, and now he is Mr. Artist photographer. And it is correct. But who care for it? No one. And it is a problem making all of these discusions. Nothing wrong nothing good just go on. At all is not question can someone without Art Academy produce artwork. YES HE CAN AND HE DO. When education is in question some other kind of questions come up only education can set and answer. Might be I overreacted and it looks like panishing someone because he did not get thru Art Academy, but so what. I am sorry Mr. Lawrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made that original post to mildly state that having a debate about bridges and art being incorporated into bridges really is off the subject. it is too specialized a feild. most bridges are designed by just engineers, but you are right some of them have architects on the design team. and architects do take art classes... some might classify an architect as a form of art degree since it is for the most part a design type of discipline. but still most bridges don't have architects helping out.

 

debating what art IS is also mildly off subject too. the main question at hand was a little mixed.

 

1. how important should art education be?

2. should art education or a strong background in art history be pre-requisite to the process and production of art?

3. is an art education a crucial part of a career (or life) of art making.

 

my answers simply would be 1)it Shouldn't be important at all. 2) no. 3) for bridges, no,, but for starving artist painter... maybe

 

What art IS really only changes the answer because it determines what one thinks on how art is created. for example: if one thought that art was only art if it was created with intent and purpose, with a respect to art in the past. then that person might not think a grandiose bridge was art at all.,, but they might think the canvas with paint smeared on (by an artist that could only afford one tube of paint) was great art, because that artist had an education and intent.

 

to clarify my stand point. I think art can be just about anything that took work and is aesthetically pleasing.. would I look at it more than twice? would I admire it's beauty? like a good pocket knife... it is a tool but if I could pull it out of my pocket and stare at it for several minutes, admiring the work,, then I would call it art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the beginning of this post, I was very excited, but the energy of the

responses drained me. Let me bare my soul: I'm trained as an art historian. I

love to teach. And the history of art has given me more pleasure than

anything else in the world. Yet, I do not want to teach art history. Why?

Because 1) academics is politics and 2) too many students (particularly "art"

students) don't feel it necessary to express themselves. When I am not sad

about the current disdain for history or for the conversations it opens up (i.e.,

how to see the contemporary world within a historical concept), I laugh. What

can of worms Joseph Beuys let loose!!!!

 

The post began by pointing to outsider-art. The ironic thing is: if you know to

call it Outsider-Art, you're already in the system that defined it, rather than an

outsider-artist. Who even made this category viable for the world to point to

and debate? In short, the Surrealists (particularly Breton) and Dubufet. In

French art throughout the last century, this awareness of outsider-art by other

well-know artists (i.e., the establishment) has inspired a great deal of

innovations in avant-garde art. But my point is, it doesn't seem correct to use

the term or existence of outsider-art to indicate one's own ability to create art

outside the system. As a previous post pointed out (with no response), most

of these individuals were/are outside the cultural designation of normalcy.

They are not a reason to dismiss the opportunities (and tribulations) of

education.

 

I don't want to teach art history within this culture or artistic climate, but I do

want to teach. I'm good at it. So I will eventually get that MFA in order to teach

art--not because I think it will transform my work, but because it will bring me

closer to my goal in life (sharing, discussion, communication of thought, and

frank criticism and even hopefully inspiration). Indeed, I can teach what I've

learned from art history more clearly and more importantly in an art

classroom: an artist must put themselves in an ongoing conversation.

 

That may sound elitist. Indeed, it is in part. I feel comfortable saying so,

because I don't think "elite" is an ugly word, particularly in a culture that does

not share Joseph Beuys political ambition when he declared "Everyone is an

artist" but, instead, uses a watered-down idea of his politics to call everything

art. I wish to note: he was in the system. He taught. He sought to revitalize

academic art from within, and he was highly aware of the history of German

art, culture, and history that proceeded and dominated his life. I have met a

number of people/artists who use their creative skills to pursue such politics

(such as politics of identity) without artistic training--so it, of course, is done.

I'm just noting that this concept that "everyone is an artist" and that personal

expression is important has a historical foundation within the academic

sphere. I would also note that Beuys not only changed art within the

academic environment, but that he also changed how art historians view/deal

with/discuss contemporary art. Art history isn't the bad guy here (the

establishment of "isms"), but thoroughly wishes to learn from the artists.

 

At the same time, the wish to point out that all "successful" artists participate in

a conversation is not elitist. Making calendars, making pretty pictures

according to technical rules is also engaging in a conversation, though that is

the conversation of suburban tastes rather than of art-historical tastes.

 

I regularly put my own photographic work into two categories: pretty pictures

(i.e., those that are photographically equisite but do not raise cultural or

historical connections or questions) or "artworks" (those that strive, even if

unsuccessfully as yet, to engage in cultural/historical conversations). It is true

that, because of my historical background (beginning at the age of 14 when I

began studying Michelangelo), I hold the "pretty pictures" in lower estime. I

fight myself on this daily. But, at least, I know what "conversation" I want to be

in, whether or not I become important. Moreover, I realize that a

"conversation" exists, which is the point of "education" to begin with.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the beginning of this post, I was very excited, but the energy of the

responses drained me. Let me bare my soul: I'm trained as an art historian. I

love to teach. And the history of art has given me more pleasure than

anything else in the world. Yet, I do not want to teach art history. Why?

Because 1) academics is politics and 2) too many students (particularly "art"

students) don't feel it necessary to express themselves. When I am not sad

about the current disdain for history or for the conversations it opens up (i.e.,

how to see the contemporary world within a historical concept), I laugh. What

can of worms Joseph Beuys let loose!!!!

 

The post began by pointing to outsider-art. The ironic thing is: if you know to

call it Outsider-Art, you're already in the system that defined it, rather than an

outsider-artist. Who even made this category viable for the world to point to

and debate? In short, the Surrealists (particularly Breton) and Dubufet. In

French art throughout the last century, this awareness of outsider-art by other

well-know artists (i.e., the establishment) has inspired a great deal of

innovations in avant-garde art. But my point is, it doesn't seem correct to use

the term or existence of outsider-art to indicate one's own ability to create art

outside the system. As a previous post pointed out (with no response), most

of these individuals were/are outside the cultural designation of normalcy.

They are not a reason to dismiss the opportunities (and tribulations) of

education.

 

I don't want to teach art history within this culture or artistic climate, but I do

want to teach. I'm good at it. So I will eventually get that MFA in order to teach

art--not because I think it will transform my work, but because it will bring me

closer to my goal in life (sharing, discussion, communication of thought, and

frank criticism and even hopefully inspiration). Indeed, I can teach what I've

learned from art history more clearly and more importantly in an art

classroom: an artist must put themselves in an ongoing conversation.

 

That may sound elitist. Indeed, it is in part. I feel comfortable saying so,

because I don't think "elite" is an ugly word, particularly in a culture that does

not share Joseph Beuys political ambition when he declared "Everyone is an

artist" but, instead, uses a watered-down idea of his politics to call everything

art. I wish to note: he was in the system. He taught. He sought to revitalize

academic art from within, and he was highly aware of the history of German

art, culture, and history that proceeded and dominated his life. I have met a

number of people/artists who use their creative skills to pursue such politics

(such as politics of identity) without artistic training--so it, of course, is done.

I'm just noting that this concept that "everyone is an artist" and that personal

expression is important has a historical foundation within the academic

sphere. I would also note that Beuys not only changed art within the

academic environment, but that he also changed how art historians view/deal

with/discuss contemporary art. Art history isn't the bad guy here (the

establishment of "isms"), but thoroughly wishes to learn from the artists.

 

At the same time, the wish to point out that all "successful" artists participate in

a conversation is not elitist. Making calendars, making pretty pictures

according to technical rules is also engaging in a conversation, though that is

the conversation of suburban tastes rather than of art-historical tastes.

 

I regularly put my own photographic work into two categories: pretty pictures

(i.e., those that are photographically equisite but do not raise cultural or

historical connections or questions) or "artworks" (those that strive, even if

unsuccessfully as yet, to engage in cultural/historical conversations). It is true

that, because of my historical background (beginning at the age of 14 when I

began studying Michelangelo), I hold the "pretty pictures" in lower estime. I

fight myself on this daily. But, at least, I know what "conversation" I want to be

in, whether or not I become important. Moreover, I realize that a

"conversation" exists, which is the point of "education" to begin with.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I regularly put my own photographic work into two categories: pretty pictures (i.e., those that are photographically equisite but do not raise cultural or historical connections or questions) or "artworks" (those that strive, even if unsuccessfully as yet, to engage in cultural/historical conversations). It is true that, because of my historical background (beginning at the age of 14 when I began studying Michelangelo), I hold the "pretty pictures" in lower estime. I fight myself on this daily. But, at least, I know what "conversation" I want to be in, whether or not I become important. Moreover, I realize that a "conversation" exists, which is the point of "education" to begin with."

 

I'm your opposite as I hold pretty pictures in high esteem but wallow in artistic conversation because pretty pictures no longer bring me satisfaction. How I wish I could turn back the hands of time and become naive again as I lament, unsuccessfully, for the artistic conversation of ignorance:)

 

Very poignent and interesting thoughts on your part.<div>00EOA3-26791184.jpg.e9c3ca11dce3d86d5d791e4491ff7f90.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Catherine,

 

A fascinating post indeed -- but one of my art historian chums argues that art history should involve more 'experimental archaeology' (e.g. grinding your own pigments at least once) and less emphasis on '-isms'. What are your views on this?

 

As for 'pretty pictures' versus 'conversation', perhaps you would care to enlarge upon this. I take it that you mean that the viewer has to contribute something to the image, i.e there must be some ambiguity. My own suspicion is that a 'pretty picture' normally succeeds because the viewer knows exactly what to contribute, and what they are being given, and to me, this may be more difficult for the artist than engaging in 'conversation'.

 

'Suburban tastes' seemed to me an unnecessarily harsh and patronising view. I am cheerfully an elitist but that brought my populist hackles up. After all, where would you place Alma-Tadema? Liechtenstein? I'd say that both are major artists, though some way from the first rank, but one of my art historian chums dismisses them as being merely products of their time. Then I pointed out that most artists are...

 

Two of my dearest friends are art historians and I always love discussing this sort of thing with them; I'm glad I found this thread as one lives 300 km away and the other 7000km away.

 

Finally, I shall unfortunately be away for ten or twelve days and unable to respond quickly but I look forward to your further thoughts.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thought today, in regard to education, the prevailing attitude it breeds (insecurity) and how this elite, educated attitude (insecurity) affects "chosen" art. Let's face it, like it or not, art has a chosen power structure.

 

Often disparaging comments are left on this board as to noting educational levels and how lacking an educational level of "their" approval, this somehow impairs one's intellectual "status." I won't name board names, as they know who they are. The point, this brand of artistic intellectual elitism is prevelent here.

 

"Oh, so you're a (enter your choice) farmer." As if this pronouncement reveals some intellectual flaw in the individual's character. Yet it's undeniably true there's a symbiotic relationship between these intellectually "superior" creatures, who make note of these points in regard to the another person's education level and yet while condemning, depend upon these same intellectually inferior individuals for support services and sustenance. Elitism? Hmmmmmm!

 

I have seen, over the several years I've been here, a one way level of tolerance, exhibited many times on this board by many as to prejudices towards those who lack "credentials" or have "unacceptable" religious or political leanings as if this somehow makes the pronouncer of this point omniscient in matters of artistic and social judgment.

 

The point, (education in art) how much of this intellectual (elitism) influence (bias) is the basis as to what's chosen to be held in high esteem and displayed by curators as contemporary's art? Which in the final, sans a democratic process, if you explore the weaning process furthervby adding the revealing light of transparency, makes noted art, in real terms, a Pavlovian response of conditioning via this intellectual (biasing) elitism.

 

What say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...