Purpose of Art Education

[jvgig]

What is the purpose of having formal training in art?

I have always been under the impression that any formal education, at least at an advanced level, is all conceptual. You learn basics/concepts that you then have to apply to something new in your professional life. If so, then could it be argued that the only purpose of an art education is to learn the technical basics of the trade? Maybe it is just me, but I feel that going to school and focusing your study on abstract patterns teaches the student very little. Obviously there are certain things to be gained from studying patterns, but taking that approach in an educational setting, sets the artist up for nothing but that path. Similarly, if you went to school to be a mathematician, and they only taught you the basics of addition and multiplication, you would leave with a very limited set of future options. So, would it be best to have an education in traditional techniques, or a more "open" mentality geared toward expression? Both approaches can yield financial success and scholarly praise, but would having a solid background in realism, lighting, etc provide you with a better chance at having success in whatever style you pursue?

[Craig D]

You might want to head over to the art education part of the site and check out a couple of the stickies.

[TASmith]

Those stickied threads give tons of useful, practical advice, and they're from leaders in the field. I will say, though, that you seem to be asking more about the philosophical reasons for art ed. Let me try and go point by point:

1. At an advanced level (i.e. after at least 10 years of advanced training) yes, art education is mostly conceptual. I'd consider an MFA program to be mostly concerned with developing content over craft (they assume you have the craft).

2. "You learn basics/concepts that you then have to apply to something new in your professional life." - yes...

3. "If so, then could it be argued that the only purpose of an art education is to learn the technical basics of the trade?" - um, you can argue anything but this statement is pretty weak, and it doesn't follow from the previous statements. It actually contradicts your first point. Yes, art ed should focus on "the basics", but it's good to supplement that along the way with art history, which encompasses theory, style, conceptualizing - everything. And, art isn't just a trade. It isn't just many trades. It's a form of communication, among other things.

4. "I feel that going to school and focusing your study on abstract patterns teaches the student very little." - It's quite likely you're in a poor art program, but you're not expressing it well. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Or in any of Bob Mentler's studies: http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=72362

5. "Obviously there are certain things to be gained from studying patterns, but taking that approach in an educational setting, sets the artist up for nothing but that path." - No, fortunately, every artist gets to choose their own path.

6. "if you went to school to be a mathematician, and they only taught you the basics of addition and multiplication, you would leave with a very limited set of future options." - Art isn't math and can't be taught the same way. But, having said that, you've just contradicted your third point.

7. "would it be best to have an education in traditional techniques, or a more "open" mentality geared toward expression?" - It would be best to explore both. Don't stick to one as a cop-out of the other.

8. "would having a solid background in realism, lighting, etc provide you with a better chance at having success in whatever style you pursue?" - Define success. In terms of career, the main thing is to work your butt off. I've seen your sketchbook and you've come a long way already, and it's refreshing to see someone taking their education into their own hands. But, if you want to make a career of art, you still have a long, long way to go. Keep doing what you want to. Pick a mountain and climb it, but don't stop for a minute, because you won't have endless amounts of time to devote to this.

EDIT: just as an aside, here's a new favorite artist I just found this morning you might be interested in. Art doesn't have to be realistic to be good, but it helps when it's based on observation and years of training: Charles Burchfield http://www.the-athenaeum.org/art/by_...Artist_ID=1725

As to the purposes of art education... Well, here's what I came up with in grad school:

1. If all art is fundamentally communication, then denying courses in the arts is paramount to silencing the voices of the entire population of our country. It’s undemocratic. Although the freedom to speak out and make art may still exist, and allow a moderate level of discourse, it leaves most people without the preparation and sophistication to create or take in this art and information, and respond in kind on a wide-scale level. All citizens need an effective, educational program that can develop their sensibilities and focus their minds so that they may effectively transmit their views to others. All citizens also need preparation and development in finding new ways to show their work to an audience, as the current methods supported by public institutions are severely limiting. If our population is unable, or through lack of education, uninterested in portraying itself, then it will be at the mercy of others to portray it to future generations. Our grandchildren will only know us through popular films, television archives, libraries, tombstones, and various products. This may be art, but it’s someone else’s, not your own.
2. As communication, art is a direct means of entering into the mind of people from different cultures, and even points in time. This direct mental link allows us to greater see and understand events that took place in our history, through the minds of others. It allows us to greater understand what it means to be human, and to empathize with others – an ability that scientists and historians have acknowledged is crucial in creating a stable, peaceful world.
3. As art is communication, it’s meaning and value come, in part, from the message each work sends. One has to care about something to talk about it, and create meaningful art. By encouraging this aspect and view of art, and incorporating it in the classroom in inventive ways, one can help students learn to care – about themselves, others, other’s property, other’s artwork, and the world at large. A student might not like a work of art made by another, but would be able to appreciate the thought and skill that went into it.
4. Because all the arts deal with symbols, acting, and illusions, it shows more than any other field of education how easily fooled and misled our eyes and minds are. In our world of advertising, propaganda, and social conditioning, it is crucial that students learn to know when they are being manipulated.
5. Art education gives the opportunity of learning an art to those who want it. Denying art courses directly hurts those who never get to develop artists’ skills. Additionally, many people will never know that they have artistic skills until presented with a specific material or assignment. Denying that course keeps a person from knowing one of their own powers – an entire aspect of oneself.
6. As art often presents us with new and contradictory ideas (and often presented in atypical formats and images) it constantly confronts us with the unfamiliar. We react to it in a nonhabitual way. This unique experience, when given enough time in a course, can help develop in students a new appreciation for the vastness, complexity, and mystery of our world, and additionally will build in them a method for responding to this. This can be vital for understanding various taboo subjects that would otherwise be ignored, such as racism, discrimination, homophobia, etc. One of the many abilities of art is to take a horrible event or feeling, and make it safe and tolerable so that we can look at it an objective way. In this way art can prepare us for the trials and ordeals we all will face in our lives.
7. The process of making art – of drawing, painting or constructing – is interior. The mind closes itself from outside influences and considerations for a time, shutting out other concerns, tasks, hopes, etc. It separates oneself from one’s life for a time – much like watching a movie, or reading a book. At the same time it requires a constant train of thought related to the artwork, and solving various problems related to its creation, engaging one’s mind. This process is very therapeutic, helping maintain a healthy mind. By learning an art in school, students can remember and use this therapeutic method to maintain a healthy mind throughout their lives.
8. Arts and culture classes are the only ones in any educational environment that ask the fundamental question, “What now?” From a societal standpoint, they ask us where are society/societies are headed. They ask us what our values are now, and what will they be in the future. They ask us what confrontations may lie ahead. From a personal point of view, they ask us, once all the work is done, and we’ve learned what we had to for basic survival, what’s next? What are we going to do with ourselves? How are we going to justify all the b.s. we learned and all the struggles we endured, and even all the people who were oppressed and killed? After the work’s done, how are we going to enjoy ourselves and the time we’ve got left? If you look at any one person in the world, after they’ve come home from work, gotten comfortable, and finished any little annoying tasks, they all end up either creating or viewing art. Whether it’s a TV show, a music CD, a trip to the cinema, or whatever, it’s all art. In a way, art is the product of all we have learned, all that we can contribute to the universe – should peoples from other parts of the universe ever take interest in us.
9. There are hundreds of art related careers that one can take, after having completed study in the arts.

[Hyskoa]

What is the purpose of having formal training in art?

I have always been under the impression that any formal education, at least at an advanced level, is all conceptual. You learn basics/concepts that you then have to apply to something new in your professional life. If so, then could it be argued that the only purpose of an art education is to learn the technical basics of the trade? Maybe it is just me, but I feel that going to school and focusing your study on abstract patterns teaches the student very little. Obviously there are certain things to be gained from studying patterns, but taking that approach in an educational setting, sets the artist up for nothing but that path. Similarly, if you went to school to be a mathematician, and they only taught you the basics of addition and multiplication, you would leave with a very limited set of future options. So, would it be best to have an education in traditional techniques, or a more "open" mentality geared toward expression? Both approaches can yield financial success and scholarly praise, but would having a solid background in realism, lighting, etc provide you with a better chance at having success in whatever style you pursue?

Simply ask yourself, will the opinion I desire to express require figurative work?

If yes, first go for a year or two to an atelier and then reassess your point of view. Ask yourself again, do I require more time to expand upon my opinions/craft and provide myself with historic sub context?
Will I require a bachelor or a masters degree?(Will 3 years be enough where upon I will have made enough contacts to get some sort of start or do I want to continue for a master degree and teach? Or continue for a doctorate and teach?)

[jvgig]

Yes, I am looking at the philosophy behind art education and trying to link it to my own education options.

I am first and foremost a math/science student and plan to earn a phd in materials science and engineering. One of my activities, just happens to be art and I would like to pursue it to some degree in college. As you may have noticed from scanning my sketchbook, I am currently a high school student. I think this is where my observations may be stemming from. Our program is what I would consider the "express" yourself type. There are no standards and the teacher provides basically no instruction. From what I have noticed, there is largely no improvement in the class. For example, someone drew tube fingers on their self portrait and not a word was said about possible anatomy issues/intentions. Obviously, I do not know how a class in a college environment works, but for a general draw/paint course, I do not find the "anything can be art" mentality to be helpful. I would like to say that I have no problem with abstract/pattern art, as it is the only type of work that I would ever want to hang on my wall, but I am not sure that it can be taught.

You can teach a student how to draw a figure, or how to work with lighting and color combinations to produce a work with a certain feel, but if you have the student focus his work on abstract pieces, what is he learning? After one or two conceptual composition and color theory classes, what else is there to teach? Sure, he will probably make stronger pieces by the end of his education than at the beginning, but is it a result of trial and error, or a result of study, or maybe both as it would be with representational pieces?

[TASmith]

"I do not find the "anything can be art" mentality to be helpful." - It's incredibly liberating. Right now in this world you can make absolutely any kind of art, and so long as it's quality work, you'll find an audience. We're extremely fortunate for this.

"but I am not sure that it can be taught." Sure it can. Your next statement, "or how to work with lighting and color combinations to produce a work with a certain feel," can apply directly to abstraction.

"After one or two conceptual composition and color theory classes, what else is there to teach?" - don't fool yourself into thinking composition is easy, and it applies just as strongly to representation. Here's a link someone sent me recently you'd like, Loomis's explanation of composition:

http://www.fineart.sk/index.php?s=16&cat=13
http://www.fineart.sk/index.php?s=24&cat=13
http://www.fineart.sk/index.php?s=32&cat=13
http://www.fineart.sk/index.php?s=40&cat=13

Read the chapter on line.

"is it a result of trial and error, or a result of study" - trial and error is a form of study, possibly the most important. There are three paths to knowledge, reflection, mimicry, and experience. Reflection is the noblest. Mimicry the easiest, and experience the most bitter. I'd say you learn the most from that.

Have you viewed the links I sent?

[jvgig]

Yes, I have viewed your links.

I agree with your three paths to knowledge; however, I think the problem that I am having is that I have yet to see any teacher who can teach anything much beyond mimicry. Often, they tell you to try the reflection portion on your own and experience, which certainly cannot be taught, comes with time and commitment on your own part. It is with this in mind that I am having trouble understanding how someone else can teach you a degree earning amount of abstract ideas that you can apply it to your own original abstract/modern work.

Here is a piece by Lee Anne Miller, a professor at Cooper Union.



"Lee Anne Miller's paintings explore the forms, light and color of the natural environment, as interpreted through observation, imagination and memory." How would one teach this?

[TASmith]

Well on one hand, all education is self education. No matter how good a teacher is, you have to really try in order to learn any subject. This means being proactive, asking when you don't understand, finding books on your own, finding a tutor it need be, and especially in art - practice, practice, practice.

On the other, if a teacher is knowledgeable and articulate, he/she ought to be able to tell you just why an artwork "works" or not. I've never heard of Lee Anne Miller, but just seeing that one work, I can tell you that I see organic natural shapes, based on a long study of nature. I'm fairly sure she started with more realistic studies early in her education, and went on from there.

If you wanted to learn to do this, you would practice abstractions, as well as realistic studies, and then other artists would say if the composition, colors, values, etc. were working. You'd filter through the crits and progress over time. This could be in a school setting, or just posting here on CA. What'll help most is your constant working, not the amount of money spent on a course. In school, I'd only take an art course if the prof had a stellar reputation from students, and you like the work coming out of that course.

[Hyskoa]

How would one teach this?

By being extremely vague.
Might be best to avoid this school like the plague after all.
Go get some formal training first.

[Maxine Schacker]

Western representational art is a language that can be learned. Abstract art originally grew out of that language.

On one level, all painting is abstract. That is, it must work as a composition, as an arrangement of shapes and colors on the page.

In my view, good representational painting simply exists on more levels.

The role of the school is to give the student the knowledge and skills to find his/her own voice. This means that we shouldn't be teaching one set of solutions that will result in a predictable product. We should be making students aware of the choices they have and how those choices will affect the resulting painting. For example, the difference between direct and indirect painting, between working on a white canvas and working on a toned canvas, between working on canvas, linen, or board, working on a smooth surface versus a rough surface. Of course the student also needs to learn to see as an artist, to understand composition and design, drawing and anatomy, tone and tonal pattern, perspective.

Sadly, it seems as if many programs aren't teaching these things.

I have only touched the surface here! The end result of fine art is expression, not just likeness. You can make people feel something with the quality of a brushstroke, with the relationship between thickly painted and thinly painted areas. Somewhere in between the subject and how it is painted, there is a magic land that brings a great artist's consciousness and experience of life to us, and centuries later we can still feel his/her humanity and share his/her experience.

Art that is all about technical perfection is ice cold. Technique must always be at the service of vision.

Visit the Met sometime and take a look at the Velasquez painting of his servant. You'll find it hard to tear yourself away.

I guess it's all art, but good art is about more than "Gee whiz, that looks exactly like a bottle." When you look at a painting that has depth, you have a visual experience and you carry it with you for the rest of your life.

[2100]

jvgig, you're smart and you'll be fine. Quit being so pessimistic and open your mind!

[Black Spot]

You can be shown all the techniques in the world, but if you don't practice it means nothing. Education is as much what you put in as what you are told.

[Orunitier]

IMO, you're a math/science student, and that's why it's difficult to understand. It's not as analytical as you're making it. It's not as easy as
A+B=C.

[Grief]

IMO, you're a math/science student, and that's why it's difficult to understand. It's not as analytical as you're making it. It's not as easy as
A+B=C.

nonsense!
art has some formulas that always work. yes always.

A+B=C
panties + lithe barely legal girl = boner
more guns + muscles = a best selling video game concept art
blue hair - anatomy = DA fanart
digital camera + blog = ur a real photographer now!

[BlightedArt]

IMO, you're a math/science student, and that's why it's difficult to understand. It's not as analytical as you're making it. It's not as easy as
A+B=C.

Very true. But there are some parts that *are* A+B=C:

Black stripes + white stripes = heavily contrasting stripes, etc.

No idea what relevance that has to the thread other than the notion that working with art can be complex, straightforward, logical, illogical, tame and crazy all at the same time. In my opinion when I hear someone talk about the "rules of art", I don't believe them. It's too broad for rules, but having "guidelines" for certain genres is another story.

Art education is a hive of resources for these guidelines, even if it's just fellow students, and not the tutor or course. It's beneficial if you're willing to dig your nails into the dirt deep enough and uproot as much useful information as possible.

[TASmith]

"Every artwork creates its own world, with its own set of rules." - Anthony Apesos.

[Orunitier]

Of course there is Red+Yellow=Orange, etc. But when it comes to having an art education and abstraction, it doesn't work like that. I'm sure that at certain colleges you can get courses devoted to abstract art, but they would probably be higher level senior courses. You go to college and take fundamental classes like everyone else, and narrow it down to specific classes in your field (Graphic Design, Painting, Sculpting).

You don't walk in and take 14 courses on abstract art and then become an abstract artist. You are taught lighting and realism and composition, then you decide what to do with it. After learning all that and you still want to become the next Picasso, then do it.