From: James Luckett (jl@mollymail.com)
Date: 10/18/01-12:20:15 PM Z
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
i just finished reading a great little book called, "Why Art Cannot be
Taught: a
handbook for art students" by James Elkins that describes and analyzes
all of these
problems you all have been discussing here.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0252069501/qid=1003428980/sr=8
-1/ref=sr_8_5_1/107-8162030-7843742
check it out.
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 06:50:45 -0500 shannon stoney wrote:
> >Now here is my question, what does one intend to get out of a MFA or BFA
> >program? I personally believe one doesn't go to school to learn technique
> >especially at the graduate level. That can be done in workshops and
> in fact
> >you will learn way more about a certain technique in a workshop then you
> >could ever do in a university setting.
>
>
> I think it's ok for some techniques to be taught at whatever level,
> if people want to learn a technique that somebody in the program can
> teach them. People in my classes still want to know things like how
> to use the zone system, how to use a view camera, how to process 4x5
> film. They have been asking about this stuff for a long time, and
> since our teacher has been stalling on teaching that stuff, they ask
> me to show them how to do these things. (These are students who are
> Juniors at the undergrad level, more or less).
>
> >I have yet to take a non-photo
> >class that focuses on technique except for maybe intro to
> glassblowing. In
> >intro to drawing for example, the instructor doesn't sit there
> showing you
> >how to hold your pencil at different angles to achieve a desired look.
>
>
> In one of the best drawing classes I ever took, the most helpful
> things I learned were some "technique" things. The teacher could
> teach these things because he was a working artist. He didn't go on
> and on about theory; he taught us how he worked. That was very
> helpful.
>
> Not to say that theory is never helpful; it just seems as if lately
> it has become a substitute for anything else substantive, because in
> a way it's easier to talk about books and words than it is to get
> down to making something.
>
>
> Somewhere Christopher said that you should be able to support your
> position on why you did something or why it's better to take pictures
> of flowers or not take pictures of flowers for example. My problem
> with the teachers at my school is that they don't support their
> theories with any good reasons. They just beat people up with them.
> They have been doing this, unchallenged, for so long that they have
> forgotten, if they ever knew, why they believe the things they
> believe. I think they accepted them as dogma at some point in their
> careers and have never really examined the validity of these ideas,
> or their practicality, or their effect on students, especially young,
> hesitant students. I am an old, stubborn student, so I mostly blow
> it off. But I end up defending younger, less confident people a lot.
>
> --shannon
James Luckett
http://consumptive.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/02/01-08:55:27 AM Z CST