Gary Miller (gmphotos@earthlink.net)
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:33:28 -0700
I cannot comment on art school at the undergraduate level, because I have
not experienced that. My experience is at the graduate level, where I am
studying now. I didn't come to an MFA program expecting to learn lots of
technique. I already had a very good technical background when I entered,
and if a new technique comes up that I do not know, I don't wait around for
a class to teach it to me, I go and learn it on my own. My belief is that
you should not be in graduate school if you do not have a sound technical
background and appreciation of the roots of your chosen art(s). My
'classes' provide an environment for me to work within, where ideas are
passed and given, critiques expounded, and works develop on your own.
Someone can show you technically how to walk, but you have to do it on your
own to really get it. So for me art school is about ideas, possibilities,
and a framework of guidance. For the record I am not one to place process
at the top of the list, nor technique, but I strive for a balance between
the two. I feel that if an image is truly 'working' that it should not
matter what process it is presented in. The process should enhance but not
be the supporter. It is like taking a lousy painting and putting it in a
magnificent frame. Too often I see work that is all process, and not even
good process. Many times the technical/process is used to hide inferior
work or lack of technical skills. But this is not wrong if someone is very
process oriented, but then the work can begin to migrate away from
photography and towards mixed media, and the process should be at the
highest level of execution. There is nothing wrong with that, but when in
the photography realm I tend towards purer, straight photography, not always
in image, but in technical mastery, visual mastery, and artist expression.
For whatever all that is worth...
Gary Miller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:38