From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/23/02-02:22:54 PM Z
While the topic is on the table, I think the last 2 paragraphs of my
above-mentioned commentary are also relevant:
QUOTE:
There is yet another hazard, in addition to the dangers of learning art,
for the student being Art Educated: He or she will be held in thrall
during the time when his or her less artistic cohorts are learning such
marketable skills as titration of fluids, accounting, library science, or
syntax. The art student, after four years at the shrine of creativity,
may well emerge unemployable in any manner except in the teaching of art,
a captive -- willing or unwilling -- for life.
Postscript: As I was completeing these thoughts, Pat Mainardi arrived to
deliver her manuscript, all excited because she was off to the country
that night for some weeks of painting in the snow. (It was 18 degress F.)
It occurred to me then that all our explanations and arguments are
irrelevant, that we should only ask what combination of art and
personality will give that joy and dedication, and whether Art Education
makes it more or less likely.
END QUOTE
PS in 2002: Today I would change those comments only by adding computer
programming, digital language, systems, et al, to the list of useful
educational paths. Knowledge is power it says somewhere on the gates of
academe (or was that the gate to hell?). I think today we'd have to
specify, which kind of knowledge.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:27 PM Z CST