Kalimompro@aol.com
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 16:51:25 -0400 (EDT)
Thank you, Judy. I'm glad to know that my experience is not the sign of some
general decline, but a persisting fundamental flaw in the system. Well, like
I said, there's no education like the tutelage of a master.
Regards,
kali
In a message dated 7/25/99 4:31:47 PM, jseigel@panix.com writes:
<<But "art school" has always been an imperfect instrument. When I went to
art school in the 1950s all we learned in painting was the
abstract-expressionist circular wrist motion. Drawing was omitted entirely
("passe"). There was one course in "materials," but we were *poets* and
resisted with might & main. A year after I graduated, when I decided I
wanted to PAINT, I pored over my one page of scribbled notes from that
class like the Rosetta Stone. Useless. I had to turn to Doerner, not quite
translated from the German, and Mayer, better than nothing.
Some years later (1978), responding to a panel titled "Art Education: Is
It Either?", I wrote,
".... As for Art Education... once an art mode has become so thorougly
formulated as to be transmittable through the devices of academe, it is
more or less finished as art currency.... [What is taught] won't in
*itself* be much use to the next generation, although it brings the
salary, perquisites and satisfactions of teaching to *this* generation.
But the benefit of art school... is not so much educational as social.
Art Education is the initiation into a looseknit, far-flung mystical
coterie, or family, of artists. Even those who reject the milieu tend to
make it the screen against which they play their future development...."
Etc. etc. [Panel report & commentary in anthology, "Mutiny & The
Mainstream: Talk That Changed Art, 1975-1990".]
Apparently (no surprise), these comments still apply....
Judy>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:38