|
redjenova posted:That's how most art professors seem to be in my experience (don't go to a 'real' art school though, state school). They're all pretty much shams who are generally pretty apathetic towards improving or developing their work. It's pretty disappointing, and I usually just do my best to improve as much as I can in each studio class because every critique is a pat-everyone-on-the-back, hey you came to class with a finished piece even if it completely ignored all of the project stipulations fest. I had some experiences at a state school that were great. About 70% of the faculty sucked cock, and maintained employment by showing halfassed work in lovely venues. The other fraction were good, well known artists who showed and sold work at good galleries. Those are the ones to be talking to. If they don't exist, look up local artists in your area and go study with them. Or go to a better school. Diseased Dick Guy posted:
I'll just elaborate on this a bit. Outside of the top programs, anyone teaching art is more interested in avoiding potential bullshit than being very critical. It's simply not worth your enrollment drop, a bitching overbearing parent (at the undergrad level this poo poo happens all the time,) or student/dean confrontation over giving bad feedback. For state schools and low end art programs, they want to generate money and keep programs running, more than they're interested in generating top flight artists. Some professors may be capable of giving good feedback, but it might require extra effort to get it out of them. When you get in the top programs (SCAD, etc.) it's really the opposite. People are used to tearing poo poo up. In the studio space I share people I know, and people I don't, routinely critique other peoples work - it is part of the culture, but it's something we reinforce by not being big bitches about it, and giving it to everyone. So start by giving other people feedback - tell them their poo poo sucks, and tell them exactly why it sucks. You can help control that kind of environment, if you do it properly. Yeah, some people might not like you, but who cares? You can be playful about it and still give good feedback. My point is, either by controlling your environment by going to a better program, or changing the way you conduct yourself in the classroom, you really can have a big impact on how things come out for you. There are some choices you make about that. Then again, I think the notion of being "self taught" is really pissing in the wind. I have benefited the most, in the shortest period of time, from good peers and instructors who both knew their craft, and knew how to teach it with a good structure - and I can name them all, and am thankful to all of them. But I personally sought them out, and then worked very hard for them, which is something 9 out of 10 people don't do.
|
# ¿ Oct 11, 2011 01:00 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 22:38 |
|
Kismet posted:Everything you have to say there is quite fair, particularly about building a culture of good criticism. I'd contest the idea that self-teaching is 'pissing in the wind', though (of course I would, look how many words I wrote about it). Creating art is a physical and intuitive skill just like any other. Of course you'll learn faster if you have access to a great teacher and great peers, but there is quite literally no reason not to put the work in for yourself if you don't have the means to access those things. The point of this thread is that the more people with developed skills, insights and direct experience of good teaching come together to support each other, the less futile working under our own steam will become. And hey, maybe one day circumstances will change and a bunch of us unschooled people will find our way into formal education. If working hard now gives me the edge to get in somewhere good on the strength of a developed portfolio years down the line, I'd say it was time (or piss) well spent. As I said, if you want to keep it in the realm of hobby, I think that's fine. But if you want to make creative work, whatever it is, nothing is more valuable than your time - including the time you spend in school, or not in school. However, especially with things like drawing and painting, I think it's particularly easy to get into some very bad habits which may even set you back in the long run, but are pretty easy to avoid if you have a solid foundation. I think this is a great idea for a thread, but seriously, if your end game is to become someone who sells their work and makes a living at it, you really have no time to waste. Quantify! posted:I'm only in my first semester, but I'm already planning on changing schools and trying to find some people worth learning from. Every day I spend getting a bad education the more strongly I feel about doing what it takes to get a good education. For what it is worth, I studied under an artist who went to Laguna beach for years and years - there is a very strong elitist sentiment to their rhetoric. I have heard old farts talking about this poo poo for hours and hours, and I never really buy into it because they inevitably fail at a few very important things: properly articulating the basic ideas about the art movements they are describing, situating them temporally, and explaining the background of the abstract artists who were leaders (often their background was figurative). It is very easy to criticize abstract art when you view it on a computer screen or in Janson's survey text. It's quite another to do it when you are looking at a Rothko in person. The last time I was in San Francisco I saw a woman crying in front of the Rothko at their MOMA - contemporary art can be extremely powerful. It can also be extremely lovely. I personally believe some kind of foundation in figure based life drawing is critical for anyone worth their salt. That's probably why most of the big art and design schools employ it in their curriculum. I still draw 3-6 hours a week from life in open sessions, just to keep that part of my brain active even though I mainly work sculpturally. I don't think anyone would ever argue that. There are tons of great contemporary figurative artists who do really phenomenal work, but certain abstract movements really opened pathways to areas that figurative art cannot operate in. We are now ignoring street art. We are now ignoring conceptual art. Where do these gigantic art movements fit within Scott Burdick's argument? They don't, because it's poorly structured to begin with. The reality is that there is plenty of room for both abstract and life based paintings, and many things in-between (consider a contemporary artist like Garth Weiser.) The problem is that many people fall onto abstraction as a crutch, because they think it's easier, or that their "idea" is some big loving deal (it almost never is.) Those people are just full of poo poo, and it's fine to call them on it if you see it, if you wanna be that guy.
|
# ¿ Oct 11, 2011 09:56 |