Another "which school?" cry for help

[McCabe]

Hi there gays and gals,

I have been reading this section for a long time trying to get as much info as possible but still am a little unsure and feel i need some info from people that have exp.

So...I am looking at Art schools on the west coast and am aware that some schools/tutors lean to different aspects and I am looking for a place that is very hands on and teaches the "no nonsense fundamentals" of comp, colour theory, technique etc and not AT ALL contempary (as been from the UK most schools push this on students and want to be as far away from this as poss)

I would ideally like to work after school as a digital matte painter or work on environments for games or environmental concept artist for film. (thought knowing this may give you a better idea of the sort of education I need)

If any of you have any feedback on schools or certain tutors that you no may fit the bill it would help me along alot! :thinking:

Thanks!

[sula_nebouxi]

Sounds like you're looking for an atelier. They focus on training your ability to draw so it sounds perfect. They're about as fundamental and classical as you can get. They're small but you can probably find one close to where you live. I think there's a list on artrenewal.org under the 'museum' drop down menu.

[McCabe]

hmmmm yes good tip and tnx....just had a good read through and I think this maybe somthing I may look at signing up for.

I think I am looking for somthing more along the lines of a 3 year course though.

[Meloncov]

I think I am looking for somthing more along the lines of a 3 year course though.

3year courses are rare in the U.S. Nearly everything is one, two, or four.

[Elwell]

Quoting my own reply in this recent thread (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=131363):
Because of the concentration of the entertainment industry, southern California has a bunch of good non-degree art schools where you can take individual classes as well as doing a full-time program. Check out the Los Angeles Academy of Figurative Art (http://www.laafa.org/), Watts Atelier (http://www.wattsatelier.com/org/WattsAtelier/cms.aspx), Concept Design Academy (http://www.conceptdesignacad.com/), and Studio 2nd Street (http://www.studio2ndstreet.com/).

[McCabe]

ok nice one for the links all four look like the type of thing I am looking for I spose I need to start making a list and just get out there and take a look!

[Juventus]

Check Ashland Academy of Art. :muscle: It is a #1 school on the West Coast.http://ashlandacademyofart.com

[Storyboard Dave]

Check Ashland Academy of Art. :muscle: It is a #1 school on the West Coast.http://ashlandacademyofart.com

Not meaning to disparage your post here Juventus, but who does these rankings?? I agree that you can say it's a good or even great school and probably an ideal school for you but please realize what works for one person might not be ideal for another.

It's one thing to recommend a school based upon facts but it's another thing to just offer up rankings without any support.

[Juventus]

[HTML]Not meaning to disparage your post here Juventus, but who does these rankings?? I agree that you can say it's a good or even great school and probably an ideal school for you but please realize what works for one person might not be ideal for another.
It's one thing to recommend a school based upon facts but it's another thing to just offer up rankings without any support.

I agree with your opinion, Storyboard Dave, that: - "what works for one person might not be ideal for another". But yet there are good schools, mediocre, and bad, just as there is good art, so-so art, and bad art, (and really bad!!!).

After checking out ALL the art schools on the West Coast I also have an opinion, which I am entitled to have, and entitled to express. You are asking: “...who does these rankings??" But who should do the rankings? The "accredited" institution? The government?? You are saying: - "Its one thing to recommend a school based upon facts but it's another thing to just offer up rankings without any support."

OK, here is some support materials -

Most of accredited art schools, university's art departments and art colleges are design schools at best. Drawing and painting programs are very thin and incompetent. Fine art departments are a complete joke. When it comes to realism the best they can do, is to copy photographs (photo realism). - Look at student's work.

Traditional art education with the emphasis on high level drawing and painting was never that good in the US anyway (especially on the West Coast) . Most of the best painters of the 19th century after graduating art schools here, traveled abroad to improve their education - to Paris, Munich, Madrid, Saint-Petersburg and Rome. - See art history

After worldwide change of art academies into design schools, which happened in the beginning of the 20th century, the only place which not only continued, but advanced traditional, academic approach to drawing and painting - was Russia.

Support material -

“As a school, Soviet Socialist Realism surpassed the best naturalist and realist genre painting in the West during the third quarter of the twentieth century! It was a 'renaissance of realism’ behind the Iron Curtain.” - Vern Grosvenor Swanson, "Soviet Impressionism", Publisher: Antique Collectors Club Dist ISBN-10: 1851492801

“The Soviet art educational regime, comparable in its thoroughness and emphasis on traditional technique to the training given to dancers of the Bolshoi and Kirov ballet schools, was the outstanding training of its kind available anywhere in the world at this time” - Matthew Cullerne Bown, "Socialist Realist Painting", Publisher: Yale University Press (ISBN-10: 0300068441

The only other country which competently tough realism in the second half of the 20th century was China, but their art schools were organized and instructed by the Russians in the 1950s, along with the ballet, music and sports. Most of the Chinese art teachers studied in Russia.

There is a rise of small art schools in the US, with emphasis on "realism", but most of them are based on the mechanical sight-size tracing/copying technique. They are called "atelier", or sometimes "academy". Some of the teachers there are coming from the original atelier which was started by Richard Lack in Minneapolis, Minnesota in the seventies, the rest are their students. Richard Lack used this technique as a teaching method of drawing and painting. In the past, this method has been used by some portrait painters, but it has NEVER before been taught in any school or academy. It is not a valid method of teaching drawing and painting since it does not teach nether form, or proportional measurement. Sight-size method has been referred to as “classical”, “traditional” and “academic”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Support material -

“There is endless debate among the practitioners about haw old the technique is and about who practiced it. Some adherents have attempted to resurrect an ennobling lineage of artists who used the method, much like Renaissance dukes and popes extending their family trees back to Hercules. As a methodical studio practice it seems to be a late nineteen century development. Although there are many instances where one unselfconsciously uses it not as a method but as a natural approach – say, in portraiture or capturing figures at a distance – it is best as an atelier practice. The examination of many etchings, drawings, paintings, and photographs of early ateliers in session – some as far back as the Renaissance – depicts none of the upright easels necessary for the practice of sight-size. In many other depictions of older ateliers, one constantly sees younger students seated on the ground, with their drawing boards in their laps”.- Gerald Ackerman, "Charles Bargue. Drawing course". p.318. Publisher: Art Creation Realisation; 2nd edition (October 31, 2007) ISBN-10: 286770166X

As for my endorsement of the Ashland Academy of Art, I shall also state the following: The founder of the academy is a graduate of the Russian academy of art in the1970s, when it was the strongest. The drawing curriculum is based on the very solid studies of proportion, form, structure, function, perspective and tone. The painting curriculum is very structured and imparts deep understanding of light, color and aerial perspective. - See student's work

Many people may not be able to see the difference between a good drawing and a meticulous copy, or between academic study and personal expression.
You may disagree, but it's OK. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I welcome your insights as I hope you welcome mine.

[Maxine Schacker]

I think Max the Mutt fits your description, but 1) we are in Toronto, and 2) Concept Art, which includes many traditional representational drawing and painting courses, is a 4 year program. Nonetheless, I suggest that you check the program out by visiting our website. Feel free to contact me if you have questions.

[Line]

Juventus, I checked the website of the academy and it looks very nice, they seem to have looked into providing information about some housing ect which is nice, have a well organized program that suits us who have to work also so we can live and pay for the school in our efforts to reach a professional level and make a living out of art, and the place is incredibly cheap as opposed to other places that are stupendously expensive!

But, there is one thing I have never heard/read about and it is this sight/size thing. What is this? And since they don't teach this more 'famous' method, what do they teach? I'm not bashing I am just trying to get a clear picture because the place interests me, if not for what it offers (which is plenty), at least from the care they have taken to provide some insight and help (or they at least show that they will be interested in helping) for students who are from out of town and who do not have $10,000 per month to spend on finding a place to rent, work and then getting in the school (unless I got it wrong).

[Storyboard Dave]

[HTML]You are asking: “...who does these rankings??" But who should do the rankings?

I'd rather abolish these rankings totally.

They're mainly based upon opinions as to who's the "best". It's an entirely different thing if you were comparing quantitative things like who has the largest campus square footage, who has the largest endowment, etc..

[Juventus]

But, there is one thing I have never heard/read about and it is this sight/size thing. What is this? And since they don't teach this more 'famous' method, what do they teach?

Yasou Line!

Sight-size is not famous method at all!!! As educational method it started in America in the 1970s.
Sight-size method is a mechanical point by point transfer from model to paper, or canvas,the same size, as it is in the picture plane. In order to draw, one needs to develop the ability to measure proportionally, meaning that every part must have the same relationship to the other parts in size, as it is on the model. For example: - the vase is so much bigger then the cup, or the head is so much smaller then the ribcage, etc. The ability to see each part in relationship to the whole and therefore keep all of the parts in the same scale - is not easy to attain, and takes years of constant practice. This is the essential aspect of drawing, and is the biggest reason why academies had exams and would not except students which did not develop this ability. Some professors at nineteen century Russian academy demonstrated the level of virtuosity by drawing for example the statue of Laocoon starting from the small toe all the way to the head, or drawing parts of the model on different peaces of paper, and when they put them together, all of the parts fit together perfectly.
Sight-size method bypasses the need for proportional measurement using stretched string and directly tracing the points from the model to the surface.
Here is a link to the site which explains the process:

http://480bc.com/sight_size/sightsize.htm

....what do they teach?

If you are asking about Ashland Academy of Art, as I was saying :

The drawing curriculum is based on the very solid studies of proportion, form, structure, function, perspective and tone. The painting curriculum is very structured and imparts deep understanding of light, color and aerial perspective.

There are a lot more things they teach, I just bring general points.

[Juventus]

But, there is one thing I have never heard/read about and it is this sight/size thing. What is this? And since they don't teach this more 'famous' method, what do they teach?

Yasou Line!

Sight-size is not famous method at all!!! As educational method it started in America in the 1970s.
Sight-size method is a mechanical point by point transfer from model to paper, or canvas,the same size, as it is in the picture plane. In order to draw, one needs to develop the ability to measure proportionally, meaning that every part must have the same relationship to the other parts in size, as it is on the model. For example: - the vase is so much bigger then the cup, or the head is so much smaller then the ribcage, etc. The ability to see each part in relationship to the whole and therefore keep all of the parts in the same scale - is not easy to attain, and takes years of constant practice. This is the essential aspect of drawing, and is the biggest reason why academies had exams and would not except students which did not develop this ability. Some professors at nineteen century Russian academy demonstrated the level of virtuosity by drawing for example the statue of Laocoon starting from the small toe all the way to the head, or drawing parts of the model on different peaces of paper, and when they put them together, all of the parts fit together perfectly.
Sight-size method bypasses the need for proportional measurement using stretched string and directly tracing the points from the model to the surface.
Here is a link to the site which explains the process:

http://480bc.com/sight_size/sightsize.htm

....what do they teach?

If you are asking about Ashland Academy of Art, as I was saying :

The drawing curriculum is based on the very solid studies of proportion, form, structure, function, perspective and tone. The painting curriculum is very structured and imparts deep understanding of light, color and aerial perspective.

There are a lot more things they teach, I just bring general points.

[Juventus]

I'd rather abolish these rankings totally.

They're mainly based upon opinions as to who's the "best". It's an entirely different thing if you were comparing quantitative things like who has the largest campus square footage, who has the largest endowment, etc..

If you'd rather abolish rankings because they are based on opinions, shouldn't then opinions be abolished as well? Then only largest square footage would count for good education... How come there are best ballet troupes, best cardiology departments, best law schools etc.? When it comes to the art education everybody is confused, because there are no standards by which one can assess the quality of teaching and level of graduates.
Check out the movie "Art school confidential".

[Storyboard Dave]

If you'd rather abolish rankings because they are based on opinions, shouldn't then opinions be abolished as well? Then only largest square footage would count for good education... How come there are best ballet troupes, best cardiology departments, best law schools etc.? When it comes to the art education everybody is confused, because there are no standards by which one can assess the quality of teaching and level of graduates.
Check out the movie "Art school confidential".

I have no problems with individual first hand opinions from people who went to those schools. Just because there are other "Best of..." lists doesn't make them any more of an authority than a list of Best Art Schools. By your logic of "no standards by which one can assess the quality of teaching and level of graduates" proves my point in that no entity can determine what's the Best. If one wants to compare factual quantitative things of different institutions- I'm all for that. Give me the hard numbers and standards to which these schools are deemed the best.

To cite something is the best is purely speculative when it comes to comparing art schools. How many of these "authorities" have been to more than a handful of art schools to adequately compare one's quality to another?

[WhizBang]

If you'd rather abolish rankings because they are based on opinions, shouldn't then opinions be abolished as well? Then only largest square footage would count for good education... How come there are best ballet troupes, best cardiology departments, best law schools etc.? When it comes to the art education everybody is confused, because there are no standards by which one can assess the quality of teaching and level of graduates.
Check out the movie "Art school confidential".

I think you missed out on what SB Dave is trying to get at.

If you can't measure it, how can you say it's the best, second best, third best, etc..? And where did you come up with that wacked idea of abolishing opinions? No one here is saying anything about censorship here.

Personally I hate seeing that US News & World Report, Kiplingers or Forbes crap as to who's the best. Best for what? Those places they recommend in there sure as hell don't help what it is I'm looking for. Aren't they comparing apples to oranges? How does a CCAD, Laguna, RISD, SCAD, or any other school "rank" against a Harvard, Yale or whatever school they list as being the best? I've even heard that a small group of those supposed top schools are boycotting being ranked because they get shafted in the rankings. It's not because they're stinky schools, it's just that they don't get promoted for what they do well.

[Juventus]

....Just because there are other "Best of..." lists doesn't make them any more of an authority than a list of Best Art Schools. By your logic of "no standards by which one can assess the quality of teaching and level of graduates" proves my point in that no entity can determine what's the Best.

Just because there are other "Best of..." lists doesn't make them any more of an authority than a list of Best Art Schools.

I really don’t understand who you are talking about. Who are "them"???? I don't imply that some “US News & World Report, Kiplinger’s or Forbes" would have any weight at all, and nether US Department of Education, Accrediting Agencies Recognized by U.S. Department of Education and other ridicules organizations like that. You misunderstood me completely; maybe I was not very clear.

What I am saying is that all above mentioned and other main stream "authorities" do not have standards of art education "... by which one can assess the quality of teaching and level of graduates". The main reason for that is the fact, that there is no definition of what art is, what GOOD art is, what BAD art is, what GOOD drawing is, or what BAD painting looks like. If all of that is subjective, then by what standards the Accrediting Agencies accredit Art colleges, University’s art departments, predominant graduates of which have no drawing or paining skills whatsoever?

There are no possible ways to teach or grade abstract art, self expression or modernism, because there are no standards in abstract art, self expression or modernism by which one can assess whether the drawing or painting is correct or not, and if not - how to fix it. Teachers were taught in similar schools and just helpless. The curriculums are a joke; there is no time to learn drawing or painting even if the teachers were competent, because students must take all useless, but required credit classes. If you think that most art student know what awaits for them you are wrong. They have no idea. They think that the school is big and accredited. They are seduced by financial aid, grants and "guaranteed" students loans.

WhizBang you are saying: “How does a CCAD, Laguna, RISD, SCAD, or any other school "rank" against a Harvard, Yale or whatever school they list as being the best?"

You can’t compare law or medical schools with the art schools; it indeed will be comparing apples with oranges. You should compare art schools with other art schools in order to find the one, most suitable for you, but if one wants to be proficient in drawing and painting, then one needs to find the school which methods of teaching would deliver the skills based on HIGH STANDARDS developed and proven through centuries by the best artists, teachers and schools. New small private schools and ateliers are finding small scattered pieces of what was traditional art education, after a big blowout caused by modernism.

SB Dave, you are saying: "Give me the hard numbers and standards to which these schools are deemed the best."

The standards of good education in drawing, painting and sculpture existed before this 9/11 of art.
Zeuxis, Phidias, Praxiteles of Greece, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Brunelleschi, Durer and many others discovered the laws of proportions, form, perspective, function, anatomy, movement, color, optics and many more.The French, Spanish, Russian, German academies developed systems and methods of skill development of very high levels.

SB Dave, you are saying: "my point in that no entity can determine what's the Best." Think logically - if there is GOOD and BAD then something should be BETTER and WORSE and if that is so, then something should be THE BEST and THE WORSE. And if no entity can determine that, it only means that the entities in question are ignorant of standards by which they can determine the value.

All I am saying is that you can only learn this standards in good schools, and to solve this chicken and the egg dilemma, we have to start looking for the schools which adhere to centuries proven, scientific and measurable curriculum.

[jubjubjedi]

Juventus, I think you're being waaay too defensive here... you are reading too much into people's statements.

Thanks for the info regarding your school. And chill out... nobody is attacking you.

[Juventus]

jubjubjedi, thanks for your concern, but I am nod defensive at all, I totally enjoy the opportunity to educate folks out there!!!

[WickedEdges]

I'm still waiting for all the males to realize that McCabe called you all gays. Lawl. :P

[jubjubjedi]

I'm still waiting for all the males to realize that McCabe called you all gays. Lawl. :P

LOL, damn, I just noticed that...