I read this article the other day and it's really been making me think. The article is about "de-skilling" in art education, I'm having a hard time summing up what they mean by de-skilling but the article really does explain it well.
I believe there are lots of fantastic art educators out there, I've been lucky enough to learn with some of them, but there are also lack luster art educators.
My first year of college, studying art there were many class debates on the definition of art, long and heated debates that never got anywhere. It was very discouraging, how many subjects do you know that can't clearly define themselves?
My turning point was a professor who had a clear, simple definition that rang true with me: art is craftsmanship plus inspiration.
Craftsmanship! there we go, a lack of craftsmanship! Or a lack of appreciation for craftsmanship, that's what they mean when they say de-skilling. I had some classes that were so much less about learning the skill of the class, as they were about learning or perfecting art skills, as they were about expressing oneself, I got my only 'c' in college in such a class. (I will admit that I was out of my element in the class and had no previous experience in the medium, but I did put real effort in and completed all my assignments.)
Getting back to topic, while one's style of art may not be academic realism, how could it possibly be a set back to have more knowledge of art and more skills? Picasso, Monet, etc. all studied academic methods before landing upon their various styles.
I don't know if I got this all out in the way I wanted but if nothing else I hope people will read the article and think about the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment