Do you mean should someone go to art schools and ask the students if they're happy? And should those results be compared to students in political science? Sure, go ahead. But it'll save time to know that good art students are never happy. That's why they're artists. They are marginalized in our society. The only artists admired are those whose products are worth lots of money. Poly Sci students are aiming at money via mainstream ways, to be valued for money. They're happy. What does this have to do with curricula? Nobody is forced to study art.
What is your goal with this social science stuff? The only thing that counts in our society is money so the people who are happy have money and those who aren't are unhappy...or sane. WC --- On Tue, 2/3/09, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Tinkering with the System > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 8:44 AM > William has still said nothing about social scientists who > have studied > university art programs. > > > Amazon presents the complete bibilography for the Singerman > book that he cited > : 75% art theory, 25% art history or biography, 0% social > science. > > Nobody seems to have ever actually gone into art schools > and surveyed the > participants in any kind of thorough, scientific way. > > (BTW -- the list does include a history of American higher > education -- but > only one such volume -- and it was written more than 50 > years ago.) > > Institutions (whether churches, states, or universities) > will always have > internal controversies and a large body of literature > (mostly theoretical) to > address them. > > But that is not the same as a serious interest in being > studied. > > (BTW -- I just discovered a new art school in Chicago, the > Flashpoint Academy, > which, like art schools of old, is not accredited by the > university system. I > found it because the president/CEO has a website where he > discusses and shows > his extensive collection of contemporary art. This is > admirable ! -- and I > doubt that the director of a university art program would > ever be so bold. > Though regretfully -- I can't stand the cartoonish > stuff that he likes) > > > ****************** > > > > Miller doesn't actually look for information in > libraries but poses > transparently provocative questions so the rest of us will > steer him to the > right books, saving him the effort. So I think he should > start with Howard > Singerman's Art Subjects: Making Artists in the > American University; 1999. In > addition to his informative text, Singerman's > bibliography lists hundreds of > other sources. After ten years of reading that > bibliography, Miller might want > to look at James Elkin's books, and, again, > bibliography. Miller could easily > spend the rest of his life following the text trail of > books and articles > dealing with whatever topic he chooses under the general > heading of examining > the nature of university curricula. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click here for low rates and flexible payments on interest > only loans. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc02QpwPANf0op8wMhe2uu9OaG > mUzfNUR4nzEt0WMODt7rq2w/
