How important should an ART EDUCATION be?

[patrick j dempsey]

Unfortunately we live in a beaurocratic world in which peices of paper with silly writing on them; like diplomas, mean more to people than a portfolio. For instance I went to an art school which many people preceive to be a very very good school... however my actual experience there was rather disappointing. Aside from having the oppurtunity to do nothing but art for 4 years and being around other artists I consider myself to be largely a self-taught artist.

 

As far as art history and validating your art through some house of cards stack of relating yourself to some other artist... remember... Art historians invented this concept, not artists. It means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING whether your work was inspired by picasso or monet... in fact I think art history steals alot of the soul and the mystery of art by attempting to make it seem like a linear progression when it in fact never has been. And for people who think that dropping names makes them a good artist... would you call someone who thought more about the history of automobiles than working on them a mechanic? Leave the interpretation and BS to the historians and just do what you love to do.... make great art!

[patrick j dempsey]

P.S. a formal education in art should be more about techniques than spouting BS. My primary dissappointment with college was the utter lack of interest in teaching actual techniques by professors. We sat around argueing about the validity of peoples ideas and not their technique... as if ANYONE can tell you that your idea isnt valid!!! what a crock. How many billions of people are there in the world? Everyones artistic ideas should be valid in someway.... certainly if the wackjobs they feature in art magazines are being given validity than everything should be accepted. I guess the real problem is that the concern of most artists today is to make something which is marketable... which really should have nothing to do with the production of art... ever. But hey, im a wacky idealist. :P

[elliot_n]

'But hey, im a wacky idealist"

 

That's very clear from your poor spelling and grammar.

 

To properly understand art you need to be educated in art.

 

Yes, that's elitist.

 

So what?

[patrick j dempsey]

Since when did spelling and grammer have anything to do with art? hahahahaha! Im just saying that art education needs to be about MAKING art, not how to talk a line of BS, thats for lawyers and politicians.

[stoopidgerl]

It's not really a debate about "spelling and grammar"... what the debate was really about was ART EDUCATION... art history, learning techniques, etc...

[stoopidgerl]

I think that "outsider artists" have really proven that an art education is not essential in creating eye-catching, fabulous art. There are a lot of outsider artists who have no formal education and much of their art blows away many people who have spent many tedious years studying art history, the great masters, etc.

And as far as photography goes... I think that some people can pick up a camera and learn photography without a formal education. You can learn by doing, and you can create great photos from life and from the heart, without being inspired by the masters.

[daniel_ob]

It looks that educated guys say: yes it is necessary.

It looks that not educated guys say: no it is not necessary.

(with some exceptions, of cause)

And to Kim

Artist is not one producing some great pictures. You can produce and 10 pictures that will flip over the world but it dos not means absolutely anything if next 50 are bad (I do not count bracketing of guys in past when lightmeter was rare). Artist consistently produce great pictures, and just some are not great (reason =?..). Many "nice" pictures are produced because the guy was in right time at the rigth spot and had a camera ready. To artist it is even not necessary to take a picture, it is enough for him to see "it", and he see what many do not see, and sometimes he take his camera (sometimes he takes his pencil, sometimes his canvas).

Honestly, if someone shows me his pictures (and many times happened), I nearly always ask him, in some way through conversation, about his education. When you get health trouble would you like to visit self taught "doctor"? Easy to say yes/no as long as it happen. Hex, wait here, word art is not reserved just for visual art. It extends into just any kind of human's work.

Do not take me wrong, and you will not if read my post here just above this one. This is just a comment on -some good photographs-.

And never forget: to artist his photographs are nothing special. They are special just to non artist.

[emre]

That's not true, Daniel. Consistency counts for little; it's only the "best" that is remembered, at the end of the day.

[daniel_ob]

And for education to add

bull in school bull out of school.

[byronlawrence]

proficiency with your tools or methods has little to do with the vision or possible output of an artist in creating art. with a camera, the 'artist' can shoot pictures however they like, (ie, bracketing, setting them up and taking hours to get it just right, or spray and pray..), it doesn't matter, as long as at the end of the day they have a product (assuming that was their goal).

 

if I labeled myself as an 'artist' (which I don't because I believe the it would be pretentious) would you say I was less of an artist.. or not an artist at all because I didn't have any experience in a darkroom or I didn't know method of how to paint or have classes on color theory?

 

creating art is one thing. being and 'artist' is a whole different thing. to create art you just need to do it. and if you happen to create something beautiful and whatever, then you have created art... there is nothing more to it. it isn't NOT art because you didn't have an education to learn who rembrant was, it isn't NOT art because you didn't take classes learning method to create art, it isn't NOT art because you aren't a member of the country club. even if it is the only thing you ever create it is still art.

 

to me, to be an 'artist' is to try to make a living or dedicate your life to the creation of art, it implies that art is what you do. this is a whole different thing than the art hobbiest, because it requires proficiency in art creation in order for the artist to be success. because of this need for proficiency, education becomes near necessary. to try to become an 'artist' via trial and error can (with some types of art) take a lifetime.

 

If I knew a self taught doctor who had over several lifetimes (lets assume the guy is really old) aquired all the knowledge necessary to be labeled as a 'doctor' then I would get treatment from him.

 

I don't ask 'artists' if they have education, I don't need some guy to have a paper signed by a bunch of yahoos to validate my liking a peice of art. If I like it I like and am willing to obtain it. in fact, I would likely value the art from an uneducated artist much more than I would the poster from the highly educated graphic artist (who would have also taken marketing classes hopefully, and will have that same poster in the Mal-mart near you).

 

btw, I think a good way to define art is to ask 'is it decorative'. if you or anybody can say 'yes' (and honestly mean it) then I would classify it as 'art'. (I just thought I would throw that in as food for ... you know the rest of the story)

[patrick j dempsey]

"it's only the "best" that is remembered, at the end of the day."

 

-Or is it just the lucky enough to become known? In any feild theres bound to be millions of geniouses who remain unknown. Fame has nothing to do with greatness. Great "unknown masters" are discovered all the time in all kinds of fields. Since they are unknown no-one can ever ask them where they got educated or if they received a formal education at all. Art historians often go to the excess of assuming that unknown artists must have studied directly under the tutelage of a great master because of a similarity in style... despite the fact that theres no way to verify this. What can be said is that through whatever means available to them, they created great works of art... shouldnt that be all that matters?

 

I dont think a formal education matters much at all because i think if you are dedicated to learn there are tons of books and you can always find an artist and ask for some kind of personal instruction. What a formal education provides in art is primarily the oppurtunity to be surrounded by people insterested in art and access to libraries and studios and other resources which are otherwise expensive and hard to find. My recommendation for anyone interested in learning about art is to move to a town with an art school and make friends with the students... not to "steal" their education, but for the inspiration of being around other people producing art, that in itself is an intoxicating and wonderful feeling. I have a very good friend who is a completely self-taught photographer. This doesnt mean hes ignorant, on the contrary hes read tons of references and spend hundreds of hours shooting film. And despite my "advantage" of having a formal art education, I feel like I'm a tourist-snap-shot-photographer when I look at his work. There is no lack of witty cultural references and dynamic symobilsm in his work... its all there, everything you would expect from an "educated" artist... minus the art-historical self-reference and inside jokes which seem to dominate alot of the works of educated artists. (Which in comparison to real personal genious just seems kind of cheap and boring to me.)

 

Self-taught musicians tend to have a more free-spirited style and are often innovators... Im not fond of Eddie Van Halen personally, but you have to admit the guy was a genious guitarist. No one can teach genious or masterful accomplishment, that is entirely up to the individual... and regardless of the "level" or form of education, requires passion and a personal dedication. Tens of thousands of people graduate every year with art degrees, but amoung them I think you wouldnt find any higher percentage of geniouses than amoung self-taught artists. Just my opinion.

 

Now if you want to get a job doing graphic design for a large firm... then yes an art degree is probably necessary and possibly a hiring requirement.

[byronlawrence]

speaking of self taught successful artists.. look at Yanni :)

[emre]

...and Vangelis. I believe he could not read standard notation for quite some time.

 

<blockquote>My recommendation for anyone interested in learning about art is to move to a town with an art school and make friends with the students... not to "steal" their education, but for the inspiration of being around other people producing art, that in itself is an intoxicating and wonderful feeling.</blockquote>

Conversely, you might not go to school to avoid people who are less motivated than yourself. I keep saying it: If you are capable of seeing your mistakes, then there's no education like a self education. You go at your own pace, and gain a real sense of accomplishment when you do achieve something.

[beeman458]

" I believe the it would be pretentious) would you say I was less of an artist.."

 

No, maybe a scared bunny. :) Who fed you that pretentious ego numbing nonsense and clipped you? :) Only the weak in the mind are afraid of what they are. :) Snap out of it! :) (Note the smiley faces.) (Happy, happy, happy.)

 

Rant on:

 

If I were to teach a photographic "art" class, the first thing I would do is tell everyone in my class that they're an artist and if they're not, they shouldn't be in my class as I'm here to teach them to be artists, not politicians.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Art

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Artisan

 

Be proud that you're an artist; don't be scared of the truth. You can be a crummy artist and you can be the cat's meow but if you're an artisan, then you're an artist; like it or not.

 

Being an artist is not some mythical mystic mantle worn only by those annointed by some super secret, nobody ever sees them sect, from on high. Why? Cause it's a down to earth, stupid, plain Jane descriptor for what one does, create skilled pieces of wares; an artisan.

 

"Art" is short for artisan and nothing more but to make people feel good about themselves (special) and make them feel like they're something more than "just" a craftsperson, somebody, I don't know who, probably long dead and laughing while spinning in their grave, elevated the term "artist" to some psuedo mystical level of awe that only those in high places are allowed to let you enter and use and this person, who no one remembers is having a good laugh at all the dummy's expense who think the term is something "special." "It's a descriptor people, not an award.":)

 

What a juvenile crock of egocentric nonsense.

 

Let me ask a stupid question; Who goes to art institutes if not "ar-tists"..... budding politicians maybe? :) And when one has a one person show, educated or ignorant, what exactly is being exhibited..... someone's tax papers? So let me understand this, one has a show and shows their wares but they're not an artist and their effort isn't art cause they're a scared little bunny that's too humble to call themselves an artist? Just checking:) (Note the smiley face?)

 

Think about it the next time you decide to flash your effort about to those who can't run fast enough; the unsuspecting:)

 

Headlines; "Bad Artist Starts Stampede" :)

 

Rant off:)

[john falkenstine]

Yanni's music is boring and repetitive, showing his lack of compositional skills (Mix Yanni soundtracks with some known composers..Stravinsky and Copeland and you will notice the issue, even if you're NOT a composer like me) and Leonardo da Vinci, while highly skilled, also served as an apprentice and received quite a bit of training. He also happened to live in a community that was dynamic and had a demand for his skills. Contrast this with taggers who paint railroad boxcars and neighborhood walls and insist that they're artists. The difference is education and a bigger mental toolbox.

[h._p.]

-- Let me ask a stupid question; Who goes to art institutes if not "ar-tists". --

 

People who have nothing better to do with their lives?

[h._p.]

-- The difference is education and a bigger mental toolbox. --<br>

<br>

Elitism rules - <i>ipso facto</i>

[Allen Herbert]

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.

 

Double edged sword.

 

Sort of follow the leader and close your mind... Art Education. Yes, street is about HCB...and on and on....more Formal and Conservative the better...train the masses...create an a elite who judge because they have pockets full of money.

 

Education in any chosen subject is all important...for the sad it's called follow the leader...lots of sad.

 

The way of the world.

[john falkenstine]

Kim, why don't you give us at least a couple of names of successful outsider artists..now: I don't mean those who are popular for about 3 weeks, but some who have lasting popularity and success...

[patrick j dempsey]

True outsider artists dont get "success" the galleries who represent them do...

[eugene_scherba]

People who don't think art education, formal or not, is essential

live on the internet.

[patrick j dempsey]

Hey its cold outside, and it beats watching the boob tube. ;)

[h._p.]

How does someone live on the internet? Do they camp out in little tents pitched on top of DSL interchanges? Naw, can't see it.

[stoopidgerl]

check out the artists on:

http://www.rawvision.com/

[beeman458]

After that, I'd prefer to be the color of "stupid." :)

 

Is it possible for a Connecticut Yankee to make it in King Arthur's court?

 

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/railton/yankee/cyhompg.html