Art school controversy
October 8th, 2006The is art school worthless? question brought in some amazing comments. Here are two that make it even harder for me to make up my mind on the issue:
Art dealer Dan Fox said “nearly every fine artist of any repute either went to art school or studied with a master for years, or both.”
Artist Rex Crockett replied, “I know a lot of artists who make good livings at art. About half of them went to art school, and half of those, like me, dropped out in disgust. (I lasted one day.)”
Now, how do we reconcile these views?
. . .
When I am feeling adventurous, I cross-post my blog entries on the unmoderated news group rec.arts.fine. If a blog is cosy like a living room (to paraphrase Arthur), rec.arts.fine is like a New York city street at night. You never know who might attack you, but they are bound to be someone interesting. [I add emphasis to quotes below]
Dan Fox asked if I went to art school, and when I replied in the negative, he wrote:
The foundation courses you get in art school, drawing in particular, are crucial to becoming a competent artist. This means regular classes, lots of drawing, lots of teaching, over a period of time. Learning to draw is like learning to play the piano. Books and workshops contribute very little.This is the reason nearly every fine artist of any repute either went to art school or studied with a master for years, or both. The exception is the genius like Francis Bacon, but these people are rare.
Before I could reply, Rex Crockett dropped this bombshell:
Nonsense. What is rare are people who are willing to repudiate a failed education.Good repute? With whom? Galleries, museums, the press, and the buying public do not care at all, not at all, whether you have a degree in art. It simply does not matter. It never did. It never will. I know a lot of artists who make good livings at art. About half of them went to art school, and half of those, like me, dropped out in disgust. (I lasted one day.) This idea that “It is really hard to survive as an artist” is one of the biggest lies ever told. The reason it is so hard for so many is because their work is crap.
Rex doesn’t have much sympathy for artists who don’t sell, does he?
I think that Dan Fox is making a strong statement without providing any evidence. Rex brings in the weight of personal experience, but I think he misses a key point: some artists find it difficult to make money because they continually push themselves to do things that are extremely challenging. It doesn’t mean their work is crap, but it might mean they are not being practical.
There is more to this debate to be read on the complete rec.arts.fine thread.
Thanks to Courtney, Bob, Tracy, David, and Angela for your insightful comments on the original post at my blog.
One lack of comment I found interesting is that no one disputed my statement: “In art, professors and students do not generally collaborate in the process of creation and discovery in the same meaningful sense as they do in science.”
October 8th, 2006 at 11:10 am
I think that it’s clear that there is no one solution here for everyone. For some, art school is valuable, for others it isn’t and for still others it is fine, not good but not bad.
Personally I tend to agree that the foundation classes and learning to draw are the most important things a student can have. I also don’t think the degree is the most important thing either as you can certainly get what you need out of art school without actually getting that piece of paper.
I think that there is collaboration in art although it is inherently different that it is in other settings. Critiques by instructors and peers, or students who assimilate the skills and viewpoints of the artists they study with can all be considered collaboration based on the acceptance of the artist as such.
October 8th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Karl, one thing that may be useful is splitting your question in two. (In fact, the way you have it posted here is quite different from your original question of whether art school is a good investment.)
a.) Is art school of any value in one’s development as an artist?
b.) Does art school prepare a person to make a living as an artist?
From my own experience, I’d say that the answer is a definite yes to “a”, and a definite no to “b”.
There’s also the question of what it means to make a living as an artist. I make most of my living in the “applied” arts, doing digital effects for big Hollywood movies. My job title is Senior Digital Artist, and I certainly use many of my art skills in this job, but I don’t really think of what I’m doing as art. It’s a day job. I also create work in my studio, which I show in galleries and museums. It does sell, but my expenses in this area generally exceed my proceeds. The difference between these two activities is the the latter is self-directed (and endlessly interesting to pursue), while the former is creating work to fill someone else’s requirements. Both are challenging, but in different ways.
One thing I’m positive of is that I could use my art skills in a different way. I could crank out a bunch of pseudo-impressionist paintings (practically with my eyes closed) that would be sure to sell in Carmel and Beverly Hills, and probably make me a lot of money. You know, the Thomas Kinkade market. But not only would I be bored out of my mind, I’d also be embarrassed to have my name on the stuff. I’m sure there are plenty of “artists who make good livings at art” who do this sort of thing, but I don’t know, I think it would be more interesting to be a dentist.
October 8th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
David,
Excellent points. I agree with the distinction you draw between personal development in art and training to making a living. I think that this should be explained to every art school student on day 1. Maybe it is, but in a way I would be surprised if this were so.
Let me challenge you here, just hypothetically. Why don’t you quit your normal job and go into art 100%? You have proved that you have the ability. You have high standards. Don’t you think the total immersion and challenge would bring you to a new level of accomplishment? This total immersion is what Tracy points out is the key think about art school, while it lasts. There will always be someone to produce those digital special effects, but no one will paint those unpainted pictures for you.
Tracy,
I agree there is something special about collaboration in art. It is possible for artists to absorb influences in subtle ways. This is why the community that the artist choses (or avoids) is so important. This point comes up in the interview with Walter Bartman.
I’ve also done literal collaboration on a painting with my partner Hanneke van Oosterhout. This was a fantastic experience, and I hope we can do it more. I never thought I could do a painting with someone else, but it turned out to be quite natural once we started. Well, it was stressful, but the picture was complex. I’d like to write a post about this also.
October 8th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
My paintings are definitely a collaborative effort. My husband gives me invaluable feedback on much of my work and has helped me to save a number of pieces that I would have given up on. He also tells me when I should leave a painting alone-which is the best help I could get, as I have a tendency to overwork.
October 8th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Have you ever painted a picture together so that it is impossible to say that it is either your picture, or his, alone? I think this a frowned upon in “the art world”. Why, I don’t know. But it makes it more fun to do . . .
October 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Hi Karl, I would be very interested in learning what artist want from a school and an instructor?
October 8th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
We have not tried to actually paint something together although it is an activity that we do with our kids, and it is fun.
Sometimes I tease him when he is giving me advice (I get a bit crabby with him when he is right, which is most of the time) and offer him the brush so that he can do it, but he isn’t interested in going that far with the painting! Photography is more his thing.
October 8th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Let me challenge you here, just hypothetically. Why don’t you quit your normal job and go into art 100%? You have proved that you have the ability. You have high standards. Don’t you think the total immersion and challenge would bring you to a new level of accomplishment?
Karl, It’s an interesting challenge, but I should point out that it’s a business challenge and not an artistic one. Besides, I’ve already done that once, and it’s taken me years to recover from it financially. Not fun.
Your hypothesis would have to include the assumption that as the work gets better, money automatically flows in to your bank account in larger and larger quantities. I haven’t found that to be the case. The new level of accomplishment that results from total immersion may be accompanied by stacks of unpaid bills and nasty calls from creditors. Really interferes with the creative flow.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:59 am
PS – I should point out that I have a number of friends here in L.A. that are very capable, talented artists, who don’t have regular jobs. They’re always hunting around trying to figure out ways to make a living, and it takes up most of their time and energy. Even w/ my full-time gig, I get a lot more of my own work done than they do, and manage to exhibit more as well. Having a stable income is a good thing, and when you’re in the studio you can really focus on your work.
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:20 am
David,
You make an excellent point. It’s always about the economics.