One of the more interesting things I've seen over the last few years is the growth of classical skills at the community college level, where kids go to get trained as animators. They do extensive work from the model, as well as inventive practice (drawing people in situations without the use of models), and anatomical work. I came across them in open life drawing groups, and it was especially interesting to see their work side-by-side with students from the art school (NSCAD) who tend to join because of the lack of time spent drawing from life. FWIW, the animation studios here also often run after-hours life studios for their employees. Who knows, maybe there's a bit of a return to sanity going on.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:36 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > Yeah, this is one of the ongoing debates re art schools and education for > the > artist. It's rather odd that Hockney is now complaining about schools' > ignoring > skills when he's the guy who made a big deal of the camera lucida > and how it > enables past artists to trace projected images instead of > rendering by eyeball > and hand. But it's true that art schools have pretty > much abandoned > skill-oriented teaching in favor of talking the students to > death with theory > and "poetry". I sometimes think this is due to the panic > of silence and the > need for art teachers to 'say' something, to 'teach'. > After all, developing > skills in drawing, etc., takes a lot of solitude and > quiet concentration. When > I was in art school on the 50s in life drawing, > almost nothing was ever said, by > anyone. We drew from the model 4 hours a > day. Ditto for painting. You painted > and if you had any ability whatsoever, > you knew what you were good and bad at > and you knew that time, time, and more > time, is what it takes. I don't mean > that totally passive teaching is always > right or even helpful but in some cases, > practice, practice, practice, with a > model of excellence as a guide is the right > path. It's the path defined by > old academy system. > > Trouble is, today there are so many competing art > standards and values and it's > impossible to say what skills are crucial, if > any. Some schools choose no > skills and no studio practice. They talk > happily of deskilling and post-studio. > Look around at the contemporary art > scene and you'll find that the hottest > artists right now are just those, the > deskilled and the post-studio. They > 'arrange' situations, appropriate > environments, hire assistants, study sociology > or anthropology, go to law > school. some artists ain't artists in the old sense. > Some are. It's an open > field, unstructured. So the 'art' structure comes from > the outside, from > outside the artworld. Art is now an instrument of other > disciplines. Pick > your discipline and you'll find its art form presented in the > traditional > contexts (museums, galleries). That's how a little exercise in > exposing > social inequality, for example, with statistics, photos, and some > hand-wringing, can fetch high art prices at a NYC gallery but is otherwise > found > only, maybe, in an obscure, unpaid Journal. Proving that anything can > be art is > not hard or interesting anymore. What's interesting and hard is > proving that > anything can be sold as art. For big prices. Art as capitalism! > wc > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: joseph berg <[email protected]> > To: > aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, January 6, 2012 4:51:00 > AM > Subject: "...[He} lamented at how art schools exclusively b try to teach > the > poetry and not the craft.'" > http://www.artlyst.com/articles/david-hockney-lashes-out-at-damien-hirst
