|
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 your thoughts F Campbell AIA - Orlando, Florida ART not only can but MUST be taught! It is important for every student to leave with what he came for in the first place....an answer. Part of this answer should be to the question what is ART? From an Architect's point of view I offer the following definition: Please understand that this definition represents "a definition" not "the definition." Because our understanding of ART is via one or more of the 5-senses, our perception is always colored by our experience. Therefore, our reaction to ART as ugly or beautiful is subjective. However, ART IS NOT SUBJECTIVE. ART endures beyond perception. We do however need a basis for CRITICISM, a way to determine (whether perceived to be ugly or beautiful) the sensory input meets the criteria to be considered ART. The definition we use successfully in our firm as it relates to our work is as follows: ART IS A POETIC ONTOLOGY OF (INSERT FORM HERE SPACE, LIGHT, SOUND, LANGUAGE, ETC.) THAT CONTAINS THE MYTHIC REPRESENTATION OF ITSELF....furthermore....THE ELEME NTS OF AN ONTOLOGY DEFINE THE ESSENCE OF ITS POETIC IDEA. Simply put the term ONTOLOGY in artistic expression can be thought of as similar to the concept of story or theme. That the elements of the story are self referential, that is, all parts of the story contribute to the organic integrity of the whole is equally important. Extraneous or missing elements are seen to degrade the artistic integrity of the Ontology. Instrumental in the formulation of THIS definition for our use were the writings of Peter Magyar, Attilla Joseph, Jung, Plato, and of course Aristotle. ART can and should have "A" definition. It is certainly within the powers of institutions to offer at least one or two for the use of those students who require it. It is my opinion that no "Student" should graduate from a college of Architecture who does not have "A" working definition of ART to use in his practice for the important purpose of CRITICISM. What is also important to note is the idea of "A" definition because as has already been stated there is no "THE" definition. The one I have offered has served my firm well and has allowed me to be highly successful in artisic (architectural) achievements. Colleges and Universities must adopt and profess a belief in ART and they must attempt to provide a definition to their students who need it. Otherwise their student clients have in my opinion been cheated. In conclusion, would like to further elaborate on the issue of perception as it relates to ART. One of my favorite Shakespeare passages is from the Tempest and I believe it was Laurie Anderson, who in referencing this passage in her music, made me aware of the connection beween experience and perception. The passage reads.... "Full fathom five thy father lies, Of his bones are coral made: Those are pearls that were his eyes: Nothing of him that doth fade, But doth suffer a sea-change Into something rich and strange......." We are like the sea. All that enters us through our senses is transformed within us. Our perception is colored by our experience. Our experience is the water within our sea. Loneliness, constant exposure to artistic riches, isolation, hard work and study, all these experiences and others can create rich and fertile oceans from which "rich and strange" artisic expressions can emerge. Many oceans are composed of apathy, ambivilance, trivia, and banality. What sort of Art can emerge from such a sea? Laurie McLane - Higginson, Lawrence, KS Yes the technical aspects of art can be taught and should be taught as they help the artist access the avenues they want to pursue! When I was in college, it was not "in vogue" to talk with your students. My professors would roll by in their office chairs periodically during a 3 hour studio class, leaving us in a state of confusion unless we were very mature and well established in our ideas which is pretty rare in an undergraduate program. Now I am an art educator in a high school and I really enjoy seeing the light go on when a student masters a technique and is then off and running in a direction of their own. fran - New York, NY The institutional climate in America discourages free-thinking and exploration. Art can be taught but it seems that art schools may not be the best place to teach it. There would be a lot less emphasis on making it as an art star if we 1) weren't living in a capitalist society 2) had a right to education subsidized by the government, and no, loans don't count. It is absolutely absurd how much tuition costs compared to the salaries offered by galleries, museums, etc. Its no wonder art stars are made right out of MFA programs now; they might not survive otherwise. I think it takes years outside of school to blossom as an artist and assimilate everything we've learned and apply it. Most emerging artists don't have the luxury of time to make meaningful work so there is a proliferation of the merely innovative, cutesy crap on the market. Unfortunately, one needs to be initiated to be taken seriously in the artworld and without an art school pedigree you are considered an outsider artist. Does that mean that yo u can't be an artist without an education? Certainly not. But it is more difficult than ever to participate in the contemporary discourse without institutional stamps of approval. The government made it clear when they dismantled the NEA's grants to individuals that America doesn't care about enriching the cultural scene. How much money does the government make off of lending money for higher education and they can't give any back for fear that they might promote subversive voices? Connie Phillips - Homosassa, FL This question has intrigued me for a long time and I found many of the thoughts shared here very interesting and printed it out to open a discussion with my classes. I have been teaching high school art for 20 years. When I began, I was of the opinion that anyone could learn to draw and paint. After so many years of trying to accomplish this, I have sadly changed my mind. Some just can't "get it". I am finally of the opinion that there must be something there to work with in the beginning. It must be that innate passion and desire to do art that so many responders have mentioned. Many of my beginning students could "care less" and try as I may to get them excited about art, they do what they have to do to get-by. Often students cannot even recieve seemingly simple concepts in design principles or elements and their skills show very little improvement. I have developed a kind of magnet program in our county where I actually audition the students and hand pick them by assessing their skil l level (not always high) and their interest level (must be high). These classes are amazing and a joy to work with; they thrive on art history discussions and I see their skills increase remarkably. Many of them follow through and attend art colleges or institutes. There is so much more that I could add. I have even thought about doing a study on why some do not seem to be able to learn or to improve their skills. I do plan to find the resources mentioned on this page. However, at this time, it seems to me that the lack of desire and the lack of the drive to learn and practice the skills hinders any advancement. For those few who DO have the passion and still cannot improve, I suspect that there are perception (seeing and transferance or in-put/out-put)types of disabilities. Lucus - London, UK technique and history are two energies which feed into the ideolgy of the artist: he who thinks hes an artist if can paint a portrait, landscape, or crosshatch using a ink pens still his eyes are weighed down with materialistic and traditional errors in art , this is repution which shouldn't be taught, however this could be taught through a set of experimentations by a master of technique, like fauvism, futurism, realism etc. nevertheless, the artist could never be taught full enough unless he could paint or draw from the inner-self: voyage, exploitation and descovery with spiritualism, automatic principles subconscious levels and all done with his own accord, no limitation, no regulations, no system, no levels of greatness and quality. we must conceive to believe that art cannot be taught in the way that artist should be, the initiator of himself, creating his own world in relation to his sub-being, nature , mind and soul. Lane Rochelle - Kansas City, MO Art is not just an activity or a technique...it is a way of thinking and seeing...an opening...it has much to do with philosophy and truth- seeking and these can be encouraged and fostered...different ways of seeing and techniques for seeing differently (for example: figure/ground techniques).The academic art skills can be taught, and, of course, with any skill, some individuals will be more masterful than others in their execution of these skills. ccssbarry - hamilton, ontario, canada Creativity exists as a basic precept in forming and unforming experience within a childs psyche, as encounter informs being and awareness sets limits.To teach; that is to provoke a willingness within the student to reach down among perhaps fathomless waters is a gift indeed; but at the end the teacher has only helped the student to create, and if it is art or not will be deceided by someone else.The journey is in the creation. "Art" is a nonspecific qualitative judgement and should not be equated with the innate ability to create freedoms and 'worlds with gold', that our young need to proactively feel is their true inheritannce. Pat Barbanell - Albany, NY The paradox: Art is an academic discipline The discipline of art can be taught (ie, the facts, history, elements). Art is a form of human communication. Artistic communication tools can be taught (ie, meanings, modes of expression, etc.) Art is a craft requiring applied skills. Artist craft can be taught (techniques, methods, et al.) Most importantantly, art is a talent. Talent can be nurtured, supported, challenged, developed... perhaps with the help of teachers... However, Artistic talent cannot be taught. A personm can learn to appreciate, to understand, and to create art. Artists, however, are born. Joe Fusaro - Hawthorne, NY Art can be experienced, and ways of experiencing art can certainly be taught. Ways of seeing can likewise be taught. What cannot be taught is the passion one must feel to create art in the first place. Andres Vidal - Miami Beach, Florida I am a self taught artist. I have been the recipient of Florida's Individual Artist Fellowship and the Ludwig Vogelstein Foundation Grant. For over ten years I was a member of the South Florida Art Center on Lincoln Road on Lincoln Road. In my experience learning to do art was an activity very similar to learning to do algegra, which I also taught myself. The most important element was learning to develop my own internal voice, the one that can solve an equation and can help me solve a painting's problems. I did not have a college or university education. Instead, the Art Center filled in that space by letting me be next to other artists, some much older than I, who were my mentors and gave me the type of constructive criticism that taught me what was good and what was not. In my opinion, it is this relationship to other artists and their experience that is the most important part of learning to be an artist. Art is not a simple endeavor. I think it is possible to learn b y doing, but having others tell you what doesn't work can save you a lot of time and energy. Thank you. Mário Gravem Borges - Campinas, São Paulo/Brazil The concept of Art in civilised societies is a compound concept and is necessarily the result of an aesthetic intention which is inherent anyway in all acts by human beings of every kind, but which is also prone to elaboration just as everything else in the human condition. The creation of special forums like museums, art galleries and art schools where art can be done, discussed and ultimately evaluated, galvanises intentions and means to achieve it, and thus cannot be underestimated. Artistic achievement is, amongst other things, the development of a repertory and the enlargement of perceptive experience. As an artist myself, I cannot truthfully say that artists can be 'manufactured'..but then, what can? The perceptive experience is two-way thing , invariably you need a perceptor for the perceived. Art is a function of two parties, and not just one, and whilst unable to be rationally constructed from nothing by way of existing formulae, it is certainly benefited from discussion. So Art schools, whilst uncapable of 'inventing' artists, are certainly able to give them body... Ingibjörg Elín - Reykjavík, Iceland Hello, you art souls! Art can not be taught because art is soul. Your soul is your art. Art is your soul plus your vision and a bit of experience or sight. So, if your soul is pure then you are an artist otherwise not. If your soul is spoiled and sick you are not an artist and what you do only speaks for the devil. So, only you can decide. So long! Anthony Plumstead - Rockford, MI Yes,art can be taught. The quality of art education is better than it has ever been. Skills and even creativity can be taught. 50 years ago there were only a few good art schools. Now every university in the USA has very good instructors teaching to more students than ever in the history of art...and producing competent artists. At the beginning of the 20th century a good art training was more rare, therefore great artist were equally rare. There is a glut of skilled artists in every major city, rural areas as well. For the past 50 years many artists have turned to teaching as their livelyhood, and in doing so, have created more and more artists, consequentially more and more teachers of art. As a result iconic figures such as Picasso, Matisse, even Pollock or Rothko are a thing of the past. Warhol was perhaps the last icon, the one who broke the myth, so to speak. There are still artist of this caliber around though. Moreover, our culture has moved into an era in which art is more like a way of living, thinking,and experiencing the world, rather than a way to propel ones self to fame. If ones goal is to become the next Picasso is quite impossible. Many of todays Picassos go into advertising, architecture, films, music... Genius is anonomous. Painting and sculpture are not finished as activities of art, but it will never be as it was 80 or 100 years ago, a cutting edge art form. Harry Robbins - Red Hill, PA As an art teacher, I know that the craft can be taught. Inspiration and the will to commit time to the application of the craft of creating art are unteachable. A veil of culturally impressed illusion can be peeled away to reveal to a pupil the next layer of illusion but the whole onion of life's expression is still hidden. Stephen De Gabrielle - Darwin, Northern Territory, AUSTRALIA We all start off as artists; just look at any six year old. Sometimes the 'unteaching' of art can be undone. It is a shame it doesn't happen more often. Matthew Funderburg - Cincinnati, OH I think if ask any artist that question two times in a year you will get two different answers. If ask a view of art that question will most likely get the same answers. Why, becuase we want order to chaos. We are all artist to some degree. So my question is, How do you teach an artist to be an artist? And so the irony come into play. And what validates you as an artist and not just a thing(hobby). It is the viewers, the poeple who love and hate you. Art can be taught if one is centered and opened to the idea. Artists learn from each other, some steal some read a lot. Remember Fibaoncci? we are still connected. I think? John Aguilar - Tempe, Arizona Of course the skills (techniques and theories of art) can be taught, but the motivation (imagination, passion, and creativity) is essentially innate. But educational contexts can stimulate and foster the latter. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. But if you salt his tongue, he'll both go to and drink the water on his own. Art schools should create an environment that not only teaches us how to create, but help us want to create. How this is done depends on the pedagogical creativity of the educator. Ryan Gadzinski - West Bloomfield, MI Art can be taught to some people. If you have the motivation to learn about materials, techniques, and tools on your own, than no one can teach you anything in a traditional setting. Most people are not like this, and need someone to teach them how to do things, but once they learn they can be wonderful artists. Mary Moran - Tucson, AZ This is a briar patch if there ever was one. I feel that a student can only be inspired & guided along the path that allows them to teach themselves. A good art teacher will help a student access the work of predecessors and contemporaries, help them understand how to appreciate and think critically about it and encourage them in their search, but only the student can swing the brush, sling the clay,sing the song & do the dance often enough to rise to the level of art. That takes a desire and dedication to a lifelong commitment of curiosity and expansion. I don't see it as any different from any other serious life endeavor. I just think there is a mistaken idea among students that art is "easy" and they can become masters in a short time when they cannot even become technically proficient in a short time, not realizing that art is so much more - it is about translating their life perspective into their own (searched for and found) artistic voice. It just takes time and commitment. Miranda Sowell - Norman, OK i feel technique and theory can absolutely be taught. although, no one can learn how to be creative. one might be the most creative person out there with many ideas and not have ever picked up a brush or pencil. therefore, not being able to execute their idea the way they envisioned it. once taught skill or technique, that person will most likely create a master piece. some people are born with a gift of drawing or what have you, others have to work at it or keep drawing to eventually become as good, if not better, as the person with the natural talent. being around other artists helps influence ideas and thoughts, which is learning. we learn from others every day. from personal experience, i have always known art is what i am supposed to do, though i would not be the artist i am today without everything i have learned in college. the more knowledge you gain about art, theory, technique, etc, the more ideas you come up with. Nancy Ellingson - LaCrosse, WI Means to an end can be taught, but the end itself (in the category of art)cannot. One can always "teach" how to repeat something that has already been created; but, of course, one cannot teach something that doesn't exist. However, skills can be taught! The result of an individual's application of those skills is surely valid as "art," at least to the extent that the creator believes it to be. The question of quality is, however, another subject; and though one can be shown how to improve on the quality of an art/expression, the art itself is by definition unique and unteachable. Gemma - England I think people can be taught technicalities such as basic colour theory and basic perspective, However some things are innate, the patience to sit for hours and sketch, an eye for colour and the imagination to take your work a step further. And most importantly a Love and enthusiasm for the subject. These are all things I was never taught, but are the things that make me good at the subject I enjoy most. Ayla - Roseburg, Oregon i don't think when you take an art class with a teacher they are actually teaching you. i believe they are just opening your eyes, mind, and heart to a skill you were unaware of at first. i have been doing all kinds of art all my life, but last term i took a painting class and there was this girl in there who had never painted, drawn, or anything. And throughout the term she blossomed in to a excellent painter. she just had never realized she carried that skill. we all have special skills, some of us are aware of them others have to be shown the path. Jennifer - Brunswick, GA I do not think "art" can be taught. I think art is each individual's creation of something, and as such, this is not a teachable thing. And some people just have the talent to create extraordinary things, and others do not. So, I do not think art can be taught. It is something you do, and no one can really "show you how". Don Honeydew - Seattle, WA Can art be taught? Sure, anyone can go to an art history class and memorize names and dates. Anyone can learn to apply paint to canvas. Give anyone a hammer and chisel and teach them the theory behind sculpting stone. No problem. (Perhaps they would not do it well, but the basic skills can be learned.) The real sticky point is when we try to teach meaning. Art, after all, is an expression of the human condition. It encompasses the spiritual, the social, the psychological, the beautiful, the painful--everything we experience. The true shortcoming of our culture is the fact that we have such a short attention span. If we were taught from a broader perspective and with a more interdisciplinary curriculum, our topic of discussion here would not even be at issue. Instead the subjects in our schools are fragmented and our goal is production rather than living. So, can art be taught? Yes, it can. Too many just aren't interested in the slow process involved. Tim Moseley - Austin, TX A question as good as what the definition of art is. It is a question that stirs debate ranging from the brute individualist to the dogma of institutionalist. There is no one person, culture, societal institution, theory or belief that provides a consistent construct for what art is and therefore what art instruction is. The question becomes irrelevant to some individuals and of the highest importance to those in academic institutions. Whether art can be taught becomes a matter of personal opinion and prevailing public view. Should we ever arrive at an agreement then the mysterious questionable word „art‰ would cease to exist. Zebrianna Dauphin - Albany, IL I truly beleive that art cannot be taught. Art is a way of mind, wich can only be expressed by art. Ariel Ladron de Guevara - Chicago, Illinois I think formal elements, like line, color, texture, etc., and technique can be taught. In all of my years studying art (from my first figure drawing class to the present) I've learned maybe four or five very important things that really influenced my thinking about the process of making art, and what art is. And maybe that's the question that needs to be addressed before we can tackle whether art can be taught or not--what is art? One needs to understand what one is teaching. Ultimately, I think there's a quality (or maybe a set of qualities) that a person needs to be born with in order to be a truly great artist. By great I don't just mean a great draughtsperson, or someone who is technically skilled. I mean someone who has a certain vision, and sees in a way that is different from everyone else. This person also has to be able to convey that in an effetive manner. But maybe, if a person has an open mind and good teachers, even THAT can be acquired. Lately, I've learned to just follow my instinct and not worry so much about why I'm doing something. That can always be figured out later. And ideas can be built upon, expanded. Maybe part of the problem is that some teachers aren't artists; they're art teachers. Maybe they don't start out that way, but teaching takes up time. The time to make their own work and really develop just isn't there for some art professors. Go to museums and read about art. Those are the best teachers. Donna Broderick - Monson, MA Art, and the need to be a part of it, is innate. It can be submerged in you subconscious, and suddenly rise up in mid-life, taking you up on a wave of euphoria and wonder. But somewhere, in the back of your mind, you always knew you saw true art, as in nature, with a wonder, as if through child-like eyes. It is such an emotional medium, you cannot be taught this sense of wonder, and the talent to be a true creater of art cannot be taught- it must be genius. A true artist is an original creator, not someone who through teachings has learned a skill.Scientists can be designated artists- I consider Ben Franklin an artist- he invented the harmonica, bifocals, ben franklin wood stove, discovered electricity, founded University of Pensylvania- all because he had an innate perception of the wonders of nature. Helen Marcia Potter Pessoa - Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil I gather art has to be a continuous discussion on all manisfestations of humane experience. Art can also be the present face of some kind of spiritual sensation, which religion is no longer able to reflect. Besides, thru formal study or not, one has to have a lot of information. Means to understand and keep a dialectical argumentation with one's own work. Joe Naujokas - Philadelphia, PA Of course Concepts of Art can be taught, thats a silly question.. Who is born with innate knowledge of anything? Art has always been taught, in different ways, throughout history and across different cultures. Great New Art will always surprise, so it is fruitless to try and mold future artists. A lucky few will blaze new paths, but only if we give them a head start with an education of what has happened so far. People who bemoan the art education system are only upset that the art world is not going in the direction they expect(ed) it to go. erik satie rollerblading - New Orleans, LA To say that Michelangelo picked up a chisel and knew how to sculpt the Pieta is idiotic. He learned in the studio of another master. I have taught hundreds of adults who couldn't hold a pencil how to draw recognizable objects. My experience is that about one and ten don't ever get it. The rest of us can easily learn how to draw. Its about as complicated as long division. Some wouldnt consider that art, but to the vast majority that's what they mean. Creativity, which is not the same as Art but a part of it, is taught, but not necessarily only by art educators. What is more important than this silly question of yours is that artists are needed now more than ever, to give our society its soul back. We have a shortage of relevant artists! This is what Millenial artists are working on, using the internet, ebay, and close communication, building a new consensus in aesthetics to replace the tired cynicism that gripped the last century. Tai Chin - Arlington, TX Maybe. Patrick Holbrook - Milledgeville, GA Every word and image is made. Also, every person is made by their surroundings and their cultural ideology (as well as sub-cultures). Under this view, all art is 'taught,' even art made by non-schooled artists. Whether you go to school or not, you are part of larger structures which determine your meaning(s). School is just another structure. After all, art may be a print which requires expensive equipment, specific technical knowledge, and drawing ability, but art may also be notes written on napkins or the Watts Towers for example. I think of Adrian Piper's piece, "Funk Lessons," as a good example of this argument. Piper's humorous video shows her giving lessons to white people on how to dance, move, and act "funky." Her point is that characteristics are not 'natural' to one race or another, but that characterisitcs are learned, and that people are constructed. In conclusion, I would say that art can be taught for the very reason that everything is taught. Laurel Yatsko - Germantown, MD Perhaps it can be taught. Perhaps it can be perfected...But can it be inspired? Anything can be taught. That is, the concepts and techniques can be demonstrated and then practiced and perfected. But there is a fire, or a desire in individuals gifted or drawn to any discipline. Those drawn to a field will perhaps have ideas or contributions that may not come to others who are educated in a discipline but who are not inspired by the discipline. But there is so much that goes into 'becoming' an artist or anything else. I don't know whether the energy and efforts of those who work hard to 'become' something may not be just as or more rewarding as the gifted individual who does not work to perfect or refine or explore their gift as fully. I would say, as a product of the 20th and now 21st centuries that the artist must be born..But were all the creators of the great works or works we call 'great' of the past , some names now lost, born to the pursuit or were they assigned to it? And if they made great strides or contributions to the field were they inspired over time? They question may not be 'Can art be taught,' but rather, can art be learned? K Hamer - Floral Park, NY I believe that art cannot be taught. I also believe in a system of education. Now believing in one, does not necessarily lead to the other. As an artist, I feel that I have learned from my own trials and failures when it comes to technique and such. I think that without going to school, there are certain materials I wouldn't have known how to use at all. In one sense that can be liberating because it gives you the unadulterated freedom of experimentation. Yet it can also be frustrating if you are trying to achieve a particular "look" with an image and are unable to figure it out. With art, talent must ring true like the bells of Notre Dame! Without talent or the mental capacity for creativity, all the schooling in the world may get you nowhere. Yet what school does in this day and age, is give young people the time to fully devote themselves to their chosen craft. It makes an opportunity to study with a professor or individual that may in the past have been more easily accessible through an apprenticeship. Valerie - Clayton, NJ both. both of these ideas hold truth. i have experienced that some art exists through natural ability, but it is technique which helps the innate sense express itself in a different way. this "way" may be positive or negative, but it exists in precisley the form it was meant to be absorbed by the artist for her/his self. art is what you make of it not what others have to say about it. one might hide their art and never share it, but it is still an expression of the creative brain whether it is shared or not. any person who decides to follow their own path and create something never before seen, heard or felt is using their innate sense of self-expression. this new creation is born in such a way that requires an individual vantage point that is singularly determined by an individual. it is singular even if it has been influenced by a technique or other forms. a person may decide to jude this expression, bad or good, it is still the innate self allowing no rule or force to hold back the flood gates. Noel - Homer, LA I believe that anyone can learn the techniques of art by simply practising. The thing you cant really learn is the creative aspect. Carlos Martinez - Rochester, NY Psychologist and Sociologist look at the rolls we play. Therefore we are all actors on a massive stage, we are all artist and it's in every fiber of our existence. It is about neeimg to express self and creativity. Yes art can be taught. The audience is nothing more than a group of talented people enjoying the performance of the graduates. Susanna Lundgren - Portland, Oregon No, art cannot be taught from the standpoint of artificially "manufacturing" an artist out of nothing. But no human being is without the core of an artist within. Therefore, yes, art can be taught in terms of technique, new media, ideas, approaches. Yes, in fostering an environment of idea-sharing, philosophic development, and especially, approval for creativity. Yes, in giving the student permission to create, to set that universally innate artist free. And yes, maybe even in helping the student find ways to resist society's disapproval, and not to have to choose between art-making and economic survival. Jim Buckingham - Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Wow.. what a question. On the surface it seems easy enough to answer yes.. but the question challenges me to question the terms used to create it. By doing so a whole slew of new questions emerge. What is art really? What processes have gone on to inspire this? Why all the excitement (or in some cases non-excitement) about a piece of art? What is the function / purpose of art? What would we want to impart to students of art if we did teach art? What age group are we talking about here? What are their special needs? Is there a graduated approach to learning about art? If so .. what is it? I should note that I have challenged myself with these questions.. and have been stunned by my own conclusions. It's been my experience that much of art education tends to still focus far too much on the making of art and not enough on developing an eye (and brain) for looking at art. The reasons for this are many ... but ... The focus on making art makes about as much sense as asking anyone learning about literature anywhere to "write" it in order to learn how to "enjoy" it. If we chose this route in teaching literature, a good many of us who are avid readers today would likely have concluded a long time ago that "we can't write so we're not good enough to enjoy reading it". I'd argue that art can be and should be taught.. but on the grounds that a great deal more and more of the culture that we live in is "visual" .. filled with cues and stories which speak volumes about the values, beliefs, issues of our times. Everything from the strip mall in the neighbourhood to the auto that we drive, uses that language. Art Education should open the door to understanding that world around us. It should focus on giving all of us the basics of the visual language that artists ( in the broadest sense, and both good and bad) use to communicate. When we do this, we inspire those in our community who can "create" to create.. and those of us who can't, to support and understanding rather than marginalize and label them simply out of our own ignorance. Brian Fidler - Phoenix Arizona I do believe that art can be taught. I believe that a large part of teaching art is creating an environment where students can unlearn many of their preconceived perceptions. Once the obstacles to creating art have been removed students can look at just about anything from their personal perspective and then can find a way to interpret that perspective for the rest of us. Laura - Ypsilanti, MI I think that history, technique, artspeak (critical thinking skills), basic design/color theory principles, arts management, professional protocol can be taught--the basics for developing the artist's voice. However, the adage that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink holds true. When you mention the successful artists that seem to be the minority of the art school system, it should make everyone stop and look at their common attributes. I think the key here is that they are passionate about their work. Passion has its own motivation--you can't teach motivation. This same passion stimulates a thirst for more knowledge than what is given inside a classroom. The thirst is unquenchable--it hits you in the doctor's office, at the bus stop--everywhere. It makes you want to realign the universe to your cause. I think that this passion is what helps success find its target. I don't believe only some students have the capability to express themselves artistically. They simply find themselves in situations where they have to prioritize: life quality vs. art endeavors. Let's face it, there really isn't that much out there for lower income artists--even some of the best artists' residencies require some sort of stipend. It can also be prohibitive by the sheer cost of art materials--no doubt that is why we are seeing such strong work in mixed media/assemblage/etc. However, as an educator, I still have faith in the art school system. I will still lead horses to water, because at one time I was led and found my passion at that waterhole. For those to whom I teach the history, technique, etc., and they don't find their passion...well, I do my best to give them a solid understanding and respect for the medium. At least they become more critical and appreciative of art that they may not have had a chance to experience otherwise. |
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
