In a message dated 3/13/10 10:23:45 AM, [email protected] writes:
> Why can we imagine a degree in art practice that requires no fundamental > skills in basic media and does not rank their value against any possible > media, that requires no knowledge of art history, that sets no standards of > excellence beyond the whims of individual instructors, that requires no > survey of the philosophy of art, that substitutes snippets of arcane art theory > (French and Continental) for general liberal arts. > > Don't you find it curious that the typical advanced art degree student, > and MFA grad, can babble a little about French art theory but can't say a > word about epistemology, a syllogistic logic, or recite a basic chronology of > art history, let alone world history, and hasn't read anything and can't > write a coherent sentence --- and has no drawing skills above amateurish > doodling? > > Such people are legion, believe me. There are tens of thousands of MFAs > out there who match that profile and some of them are teaching art. More and > more PhDs in studio practice are appearing. Is this all bad? I don't > know and am actually inclined to say it's not -- as far as art itself is > concerned -- because so much wonderful art is being made. > I am not in favor of this sort of education,but it has been going on for some time. By whom is all the wonderful art being made-graduates of these programs,or remnants of whatever the teaching was like before? Kate sullivan
