Art "Teachers" who shouldn't teach?

[Reymus]

I graduated from an art school that shall remain nameless :\ and had one teacher in particular who taught, among other courses, Color Theory for freshmen.

He wasn't very good at it, and generally spent more time talking about layout than color, and about his day/week. After a dozen+ weeks, I came out of the class, with others, no more knowledgeable about color than when I went in, which hurt my work in the long run, but since I've tried to teach myself.

Now I started a weekend class brushing up on figure drawing, and in the building, I saw the same color theory teacher, and have for a few weeks (I assume he teaches at this facility).

My question is this: How do I tell this guy to stop teaching nicely and without confrontation, as he still works at the school 2+ years after I've graduated? Do I tell him at all, though I cringe at the thought of new students coming out of a course with stories of the latest parking adventure he had.

[Aphotic Phoenix]

Some people are great teachers, while others are not.
- Do you think that this particular professor might have been a good teacher for another subject?
- Do you think that this particular professor would be willing to listen to ideas on how to improve his approach to the class?

It's entirely possible that the university simply asked him to teach that class since they didn't have any or enough other professors to do so.

[jvgig]

Telling him to stop teaching is like telling someone to quit their job. They may get insulted, but unless they really enjoy their work (which is very unlikely given the circumstances), they are going to keep collecting their paycheck for their parking stories. If you feel that strongly that the teacher needs to be removed, you should contact the administrators at the school and maybe even compile a list of complaints from various students to support your claims.

I think we all have had a teacher like this at one point or another. For some teachers it is just a job, for others it is a passion. Those are the ones you should seek out and take every class they offer.

[DavePalumbo]

my art history teacher was so useless that people were adding extra pages to his evaluation forms because they didn't have enough room to complain on the ones they provided. I believe that was his first and last semester teaching at my school.

[Reymus]

While I was a student, it was common knowledge that he was what he was, and even though we submitted complaints, nothing was done anyway.

I believe he had a background in graphic design. It is very annoying to think that a fundamental class like that was taught by him and what I missed out on the class that could have been. Maybe he has friends within the administration that keep him employed, and that's probably more likely.

Whats sadder is within a year of that class, a great painting teacher passed away while Mr. Story McGee is still young and healthy.

[Stephen Mason]

tell the head of school he touched you in the store cubboard. lol. i hate teachers that have no passion. its like a person with aids going around and fucking people. dont fuck up your life and then put your self in a position to fuck other people up. young impressionable people.

This runs deep with me, sorry if there was too much passion and conceptual gore. lol. x

[Flake]

It's entirely possible that the university simply asked him to teach that class since they didn't have any or enough other professors to do so

Very possible, especially in a small school.

If there are no specialists in a subject a "closest match" policy is not uncommon.

That's why we had a graphic designer teaching life drawing.

[rpace]

Flake's right. The place I used to teach at hired a number of woefully inadequate people for specific skills classes. Hiring someone who only knew InDesign when the course required Photoshop and Illustrator, someone who never drew a comic book to teach a cover illustration course, one teacher who taught a needlessly complex drawing fundamentals course was unable to be consistent from student to student and class to class, but continued teaching it regardless of repeated and ongoing student complaints. It didn't help that the student body were (and are) terrified of the administration.

The problem might not just be the teacher, it could be the administration too. If many complaints were made and nothing was done, the problem runs deeper than just the one class.

~Richard

[bcarman]

I have seen and heard about, from my own students, my share of bad teachers over the years and can sympathize with you guys in school. It takes something akin to a nuclear explosion to dislodge embedded professors from their position. But just remember that the responsibility for your education rests with you and no one else. If you ask a lot of questions, the right questions, and still can't wrangle the instructor in the right direction go find out for yourself. My best students rarely wait for an answer they go out and find it. There will always be bad teachers as well as bad students. Just make learning your responsibility.

[XanaChama]

We don't have a "Color Theory" class, but we have a "Color Design" class which sounds similar to what your professor was teaching? I took Painting instead, and through that I have been learning to see color much better and have been getting practice. It works because at least in this class there is a high standard to "get it right".

[kev ferrara]

RANT:

People have been trying to reform the schools for decades and decades. But this is a political stronghold and it can't be breached. Most schools are just warehouses where useless goods are made and kept. Institutions where the clueless and the failures teach cluelessness and failing to bored children. The exceptions always stand out, of course.

Oh, and the textbooks are bullshit, for the most part. A political football, stripped of all emotion and interest. The curriculum is bullshit, generally. Names, dates... congratulations you know history. Let's make shakespeare boring. Great idea. Geology... sit there and look at a book, for god's sake don't go outside and actually dig. I think it was AP physics lab before one damn thing I learnt in math in the entire history of my schooling was shown to have useful application. The whole apparatus is a beaurocratic disaster of epic proportions, a works program, a political patronage scheme... a fucking crime.

Plus gym, lunch and recess.

My high school art teacher used my drawings in his portfolio when he went to get another job. He didn't teach me a damn thing (My mom was well regarded artist with one woman shows and such, and she's the one who was feeding me info.)

I had a 2-D design teacher in college whose work consisted of colors dropped onto wet watercolor paper, which bled into each other. They were all about 9"x12" horizontal. Maybe the weakest tea I've ever seen in my life, artistically. I once showed him some of my illustrations and he said, "You do good work, so what."

The arts are a nation unto themselves. And as members of that nation, its governance is in our hands. I believe it is our duty to name names, and get all hacks fired. If somebody doesn't know shit, name him. Name him on this site. Name the school that sucks. People who are serious need to know who to avoid so they don't waste time. Damn the unions. Damn being nice. There are enough people learning actual information nowadays that the whole generation of politically stupefied bullshitters from the 60s, 70s and 80s can be easily replaced by young artists with actual knowledge and skills in their 20s and 30s and 40s. If a teacher doesn't have anything to teach, why the hell is he there? Do your part to get him or her tossed.

This has been my opinion.
kev

[Elwell]

Plus gym, lunch and recess.

You'll be pleased to know that, thanks to No Child Left Behind, many schools are cutting back or eliminating those in favor of more test prep.

[Flake]

There are enough people learning actual information nowadays that the whole generation of politically stupefied bullshitters from the 60s, 70s and 80s can be easily replaced by young artists with actual knowledge and skills in their 20s and 30s and 40s.

Nice theory but in this country at least the people in charge of hiring are either HR departments (jumped up admin looking at degrees) or department heads who are so far away from the core subjects they are head of (and reality, the majority haven't worked in their field for decades, if ever) that they might as well be Spacemen.

Failing that the department heads will just hire "bob" that they remember who seemed like a nice chap with the appropriate certificates.

And the cycle of pish rolls on.

[kev ferrara]

You'll be pleased to know that, thanks to No Child Left Behind, many schools are cutting back or eliminating those in favor of more test prep.

Icing on the cake.

[Reymus]

You'll be pleased to know that, thanks to No Child Left Behind, many schools are cutting back or eliminating those in favor of more test prep.

So the kids of the future will be underweight, anti-social, big headed geniuses who can kill you with their brain?

Go USA!

[Ashtonw]

I used to attend a community college with a decent figure drawing teacher, but one semester the class was moved to Saturdays and she refused to teach on the weekends, so the class was taught by this guy. (http://www.jerrinwagstaff.com/) I not only wasted money on the class but on a bunch of different materials I never used and still haven't. He was a nice guy but so, so incompetent. It was pretty obvious he'd read The Natural Way to Draw and misunderstood everything. I think there is some decent stuff in that book but only if you 'get' it... His demos were ugly, we wasted so many hours on tedious useless exercises, and he remarked that he wasn't sure if Bridgeman was still alive.

I'm kind of a bitchy negative person but even my classmate, one of the nicest girls in the world, hated him and dropped his class and asked me to speak to the head of the department about how much he sucked.

I also took a design class taught by a woman more like a kindergarten teacher than a college professor. She somehow made cutting and pasting construction paper boring. :( For one project I glued a bunch of newspaper to a piece of paper and colored it with watercolor and she wrote on the back that "there is more meaning to this piece than you think!"

[Reymus]

http://www.jerrinwagstaff.com/ This boggles my mind. HE TEACHES?!!

:wtf:

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

http://www.jerrinwagstaff.com/ This boggles my mind. HE TEACHES?!!

:wtf:

Beat me to it...

[rpace]

It took years for me to fully understand how incompetent some of the college teachers I had at Sheridan were. So many assignments were done thoughtlessly because they had to be done, not because I was to learn and experience why things were done this way. So many assignments were time-wasters that only allowed the students with an affinity for drawing and value to get better while the struggling students were left behind.

A large number of the teachers were too inarticulate to explain the reason why an exercise was done a certain way, if they actually understood the why of it at all.

When I taught from my own course outline I made sure that every assignment was explainable on several levels; why it was done a certain way, what the incremental accomplishment would be and what the long-term accomplishment would be.

I found it quite difficult to teach someone else's curriculum (life drawing), since many of the exercises I was forced to teach weren't progressive or constructive toward the needs of the students at the school. At one point I insisted that the students would need time to learn how to construct a basic mannikin so they could draw figures from imagination and memory and was dismissed with "They don't need that; that's what running line gestures are for."

I'm not sure what the worst part of the experience was, but it might have been when I was explicitly told that I couldn't involve or interfere in any way in the anatomy courses. I was supposed to be teaching penciling to kids who couldn't even construct heads after a full semester in an abysmally designed heads and features class.

From what I'm hearing (as recently as a week ago), things are still a complete cluster-fuck. There are some good teachers there, but it's a poorly run school with some back-breaking flaws in the curriculum. The sad thing of it is, so many of the students I talk to are going through the same thing I describe at the beginning of this; doing things because they have to be done.

I feel for them.

~Richard

[bleupencil]

Some years ago there used to be a lecturer at uni whom students found difficult to learn from. It took a bunch of exchange students paying full upfront fees to create an uprising. They made such a ruckus that he was removed from his position and told to go learn how to teach. Eventually he just left... or got told to, I'm not sure which.

He was a nice old man, I felt a bit sorry for him and the way the situation was handled.

Anyway, moral of the story? Get some assertive exchange students maybe?

[squidmonk3j]

http://www.jerrinwagstaff.com/ This boggles my mind. HE TEACHES?!!

:wtf:

symptomatically, his Resume precedes his Artwork:)

[wil.whalen]

http://www.jerrinwagstaff.com/ This boggles my mind. HE TEACHES?!!

:wtf:

Despite this being his area of study, he may well be a good teacher. I would rather have a good teacher that produces work different than what I'd like, than a crummy teacher who also wishes he was a professional illustrator and not a teacher. Not saying those are the only two options, but the work someone produces is not always a direct translation of their knowledge.

One of the teachers I credit with a lot of my artistic development paints quite similarly to that guy. www.tommywhiteartist.com Maybe I've just gotten lucky, but despite what he produces, he actually knows his stuff and can help with the kind of work I produce as well. He knows how to motivate students (harder than it should be for some students, but that's another topic...thanks art students in my class who "didn't want to go to real school"!) and get us to try things we might never have thought of.

[Jonas Heirwegh]

I'm taking night life drawing classes at the moment in Belgium, Sint Lucas.
I took those class because I needed a model, not necessarily a teacher because Kevin Chen taught me his approach to draw from the model.
So my approach is very different from the one they teach here, the result is that my teacher wont even look at my work, she quickly glances and then just walks by. The funny thing is that once I start to work abstract with 90% crappy nonsense lines she comes over and says "hmmm that looks interesting, try to make this spot a little bit darker...". :)

Seriously but the contrast between my life drawing teachers in LA and in Belgium couldnt be bigger. When I hear her talk to other students I realize she knows very little on even how to approach a life drawing. How come there is so little knowledge from the technical side here in our life drawing classes, its all about feeling..
When I talk to other students, they have never heard of bridgman, loomis, bammes or any other...
Anyway thats probably another discussion.

[Hyskoa]

The difference between all my teachers and asking a bum on the street what he thinks about my work is that my teachers get paid for their miss-educated opinions. And the bum would probably have a more interesting opinion to boot.

If it were up to my these people would be out on their ass and replaced with people who knew how to draw and paint.

But that's not how the world works, apparently we have to be tolerant of failure.


http://www.jerrinwagstaff.com/ This boggles my mind. HE TEACHES?!!

:wtf:

If that boggles your mind, never meet my teachers, you won't make it out alive.

[~Faust~]

Hyskoa, stop hatin' and update your scetchbook.

[bcarman]

Man, if anyone found out I am a university prof I'd have to go into the witness protection program. Every time I hear a student complain about a teacher, and it happens a lot, I say: Yeah I hear you, how many hours did you spend in your sketchbook this week? And 99.9999% of the time they can't even put it in terms of hours. Even bad teachers have hidden nuggets. Find them and use them. Ask your good teachers how to find them. If you have 0 good teachers you are not looking hard enough. I would wade through a hundred bad profs to get to one Marshall Arisman(School of Visual Arts) or Bunny Carter(San Jose State) or James Christensen, my mentor. I might even wade through 3 or 4 to get to me. Work hard in spite of the bad ones. This is a great place for venting but go and draw an hour for every minute you vent.

[J Wilson]

Man, if anyone found out I am a university prof I'd have to go into the witness protection program. Every time I hear a student complain about a teacher, and it happens a lot, I say: Yeah I hear you, how many hours did you spend in your sketchbook this week? And 99.9999% of the time they can't even put it in terms of hours. Even bad teachers have hidden nuggets. Find them and use them. Ask your good teachers how to find them. If you have 0 good teachers you are not looking hard enough. I would wade through a hundred bad profs to get to one Marshall Arisman(School of Visual Arts) or Bunny Carter(San Jose State) or James Christensen, my mentor. I might even wade through 3 or 4 to get to me. Work hard in spite of the bad ones. This is a great place for venting but go and draw an hour for every minute you vent.

I understand where you are coming from, but I see NO reason to tolerate bad teachers. Art education is friggen expensive. If I had fully realized how long I'd be paying student loans I'd have pitched a much bigger fit with some of my teachers back in art school (I'd also have worked harder and milked every opportunity out of the place, but that's beside the point). I look at my education and there were entire courses that were nothing but a HUGE waste of time. I tried to take what I could from them, but I got precious little for the money spent on those classes.

The problem is many art students don't REALLY know how bad some of their teachers are until much later. Sometimes you know a teacher is bad, but other times you feel like "maybe I just don't get it." You're a student, you assume they have something to offer. That some of these instructors are allowed to teach is almost criminal, bordering on fraud.

[l33t fl33t]

They say that those that cannot do, teach. This isn't always true but the exceptions are few and far between.

I'm surprised that this applies to art as well - I mean, after all, people ask you for a portfolio, not which college you finished. How come art education still has the outdated (yet mainstream) structure?

[Sulk-Sal]

With my art university, it seemed that as long as you had a name they let you come in and teach, if you could or not. In Foundation one teacher couldn't explain why we were drawing with our hands covered by a sheet of paper. A lot of times they would tell us to go do a project and not explain what we were supposed to get out of it. In the actual Illustration major one guy talked only about himself, another spent most of his time insulting people and hitting on the female students. There were some good teachers though, who had a real passion for art and teaching, but they seemed too few and far between.

I will very often joke that I learned more from World of Warcraft then I did from University. If that's true, I haven't actually tried to figure out (if anything, probably more clicked). I do however know that I have learned more through CA, and it would have been wise of me to spend more time here once I was pointed to it.

[Ashtonw]

http://www.jerrinwagstaff.com/ This boggles my mind. HE TEACHES?!!

He was a nice guy so I feel a little bad saying he was incompetent, kind of an idiot, and a shitty artist. This (http://academic.rcc.edu/art/mason/gallery.jsp) is the regular teacher's artwork. I think it's hideous, but she's a better teacher than an artist.

So many assignments were time-wasters that only allowed the students with an affinity for drawing and value to get better while the struggling students were left behind.

This reminds me of the first class I took, beginning drawing. The teacher taught us false perspective, then told us we didn't need to use it. Most of the class was spent on still life drawing, but we weren't told anything we needed to know, like how to group values, or compose a picture. There were a couple students who did really great work, and I didn't understand why I sucked so much. Turns out they had more experience than I, plus my teacher was a douche.

[Reymus]

With my art university, it seemed that as long as you had a name they let you come in and teach, if you could or not. In Foundation one teacher couldn't explain why we were drawing with our hands covered by a sheet of paper. A lot of times they would tell us to go do a project and not explain what we were supposed to get out of it. In the actual Illustration major one guy talked only about himself, another spent most of his time insulting people and hitting on the female students. There were some good teachers though, who had a real passion for art and teaching, but they seemed too few and far between.

My experience was similar in some teachers at my school as well, and topped with the man I want to talk to/confront.

So many students it seems get basically scammed, and a lot of juniors/seniors coming out of high school, with or without a classic art education, go into these courses with these teachers and they might as well smoke their money for all the good it does.

I don't know if there is, but with the government's stance on getting "better, more qualified" teachers in classrooms, there should be the equivalent of a BBB to educators and education providers (if there isn't one already).

[bcarman]

Don't get me wrong. I am not defending our educational system. It's the worst. I refuse to use textbooks, they are a scam. The requirements for tenure at many schools is a joke. Testing is just plain silly. Not a way to learn. But there are so many possibilities if you just find someone, even a fellow student, to help point in the right direction. Tuition helps pay faculty salaries but it pays for a lot of other things too. I'm just saying that taking advantage of just a fraction of those things can be an education in and of itself. I am confronted daily by incompetence and underachievers in the faculty ranks and I really feel for those who don't or can't take the initiative for their own education. School definitely isn't for everyone. My son isn't in college and I think, for now, he is the better for it. But I'm telling you, for those with the right attitude and motivation it can be a wellspring. I think that is the first time I have ever used the word wellspring in a sentence. I have seen it change the lives of more than a few of my students. Oh and if you find a successful way to oust those "who can't" do or even teach then I will be a banner carrier. Another problem of our system, it takes an act of God to get rid of the bad. I've tried. Ranting has never helped because I've tried and will probably continue to do so.

[rpace]

During my time at the school I mentioned I kept coming to the conclusion that a contract outlining student rights and obligations needed to be crafted and enforced. The administration kept saying they wanted student feedback, but, when they got it, it was dismissed as whining. The amount of contempt directed at the students behind closed doors was stunning.

Most of the kids were too terrified of the school's owner to ever question anything, especially after how horribly she handled it when nearly an entire year pointed out how badly one of the classes was going in a meeting. It wasn't just the students, when I questioned Animation History being taught to Comics students (instead of more drawing, for example), I got yelled at when the owner realised there was no rational way to oppose it. As many of the students say, "You don't fuck with Crazy Grandma."

I think students should be given certain explicit rights to not just question assignments, but actual courses and be given sound, logical answers both in terms of educational approaches as well as development toward the student's professional goals. I felt it was important enough to mention anecdotal evidence from my own career or show other work utilizing the course content when giving exercises.

Something new has to be developed to work within the systems we've painted ourselves into.

~R

[bcarman]

I appreciate you comments R. One of the problems is that the good ones, and I like to think I fall at least partly in that category, are so busy "doing" outside of our teaching that it is difficult to give time to fixing the system. My guys want to see my new work and to be filled in on my latest project. That is part of my teaching style so I keep an active professional life. I can't even imagine the time involved in bucking the system. I guess I've been content to try and make my circle of influence the best it can be. Right or wrong I love to work in my studio too much to be a revolutionary. By the way, love the "painted ourselves into" metaphor.

[J Wilson]

I'm just saying that taking advantage of just a fraction of those things can be an education in and of itself.

That's a really good point, and every art student (or any student period) should know that their education is mostly in their own hands. You only get out of it what you put in, even if you have the best of the best intructors. When most people have at least a handful of all but worthless instructors it means twice as much.

My own bad instructor story had to do with a teacher who was just plain OLD. She had been doing story books for years, but she'd refer to events 20 years old as "recently". Anyways, she tried to teach us how to hand separate color artwork (well a mock up of it), even though people tried to tell her that there was no one left doing that stuff- that computers had that taken care of. She insisted, and so most students just went home and had a computer do it for us. Yep, here's my yellow plate, and there's my cyan plate, etc. Very nice older lady, but she was just outdated on so much of what she was trying to teach.

[bcarman]

Yeah, and from my side it is agony waiting for people like that to retire. You enjoy them and respect them but some just don't know when it's time. The only time I had to nudge someone out, I was department chair for a short stint, was a sister who became so forgetful and verbally abusive that when I sat her down to talk to her about retiring even she knew. Hard to do when her distinguished teaching career lasted longer than I had been alive. At least she was embraced by her sisterhood and had a place to go.

[Pigeonkill]

So many students it seems get basically scammed, and a lot of juniors/seniors coming out of high school, with or without a classic art education, go into these courses with these teachers and they might as well smoke their money for all the good it does.


You have right to be upset. In some cases failed artist turn to teaching because they couldn't get into the industry or weren't taught well. They go to teaching but their lessons are inadequate because they themselves never had enough experience. So how can a non-professional teach another student to be professional? They can't...It becomes blind leading the blind, and a vicious cycle happens.

I had one instructor who was more concern about their coffee break than teaching the class. She would recycle the same lessons for Part A,B,and, C in her graphic class! I'm not sure reporting a teacher is a good idea, most of the time the department doesn't want to hear about it, because THEY DON'T CARE. Why do you think the bad teacher got hired in the first place? Grab your degree/receipt from the school and get the heck out of there and start focusing on your own projects.


.

[Aphotic Phoenix]

The problem is many art students don't REALLY know how bad some of their teachers are until much later. Sometimes you know a teacher is bad, but other times you feel like "maybe I just don't get it." You're a student, you assume they have something to offer. That some of these instructors are allowed to teach is almost criminal, bordering on fraud.

This brings back bad memories of my advanced English composition professor who was obviously far more interested in literature, and Greek architecture than teaching us how to write professional grade papers. It infuriated me to no end that I was PAYING to learn how to write scientific documents, and was instead reading passages out of Paradise Lost. At least the guy loved Gustav Dore...

On the flip side sometimes students don't realize how good a professor is until much later. If they judged one of my old professors simply by the drop-out rate on his classes (which was somewhere in the range of 1/3 to 1/2 the class), they would be losing a very good teacher...he just expected a hell of a lot more work and effort than most people were willing to put out.

This thread makes me rather grateful that the university I attended had so many competent art teachers (despite not being an "art school").

[Reymus]

I learned that lesson well and took the class in my own hands afterward, which many classmates didn't do, but still struggled with it.

While I don't agree that "those who cannot do, teach" in general, it's extreme for art, as it's not something like the sciences or math where you can refer to a text to get that "!", and learn. Copying, practicing, and tutoring are necessary for all students for the basics, and it should be mandatory for teachers to have the basics of whatever course they're teaching like second nature.

Some of the best teachers I've had on the other hand were professional artists, designers, who have/had their own business or worked, and decided to step down or continue and teach at the same time. None were working as a teacher for "just work", they enjoyed spreading their knowledge.

Others....not so much.

[nickmarshallvfx]

Art teachers would shouldn't teach, or art teachers that can't teach?
Ive been studying Drawing and Composition on my degree for 3 years and have yet to see ANY of my drawing teachers draw a thing. Thats completely serious, i have never seen any of the 5 drawing teachers here draw anything, and i have good attendance...

Nick

[Pigeonkill]

bcarman, To be fair I think it's just as frustrating learning from a incompetent art teacher as with having fellow classmates who act bone-headed or inconsiderate. I'm talking about classmates who constantly come in late delaying class lessons, leave a huge mess behind or act cocky even when they make a mistake.

I'm sure there are lot of good teachers out there, but somewhere down the line they get burnt out by bad student experience as well and stop caring as much. Sometimes facility doesn't back up the teacher in providing the proper equipment to teach the class.

I had one teacher who speaks in broken English, James Wu. Even though it's hard to understand him verbally I learned a lot out of his paint demos and he's not afraid to be hands on. I heard when he was hired, he had a choice to pick between drawing or painting class. Even though he felt drawing classes are easier to teach, he picked the painting class so he could demo commissions he picked up. So he kills two birds with one stone and earns twice the income. It's subtle things like that I admire, without him I don't think I would have grasped color theory.

[kev ferrara]

A friend just gave me a xerox of a scholarly article entitled N.C. Wyeth's Theater of Illustration. The author is Alexander Nemerov. This appeared in American Art, Spring 1992.

This article is an absolute piece of nonsense top to bottom. It totally misunderstands Howard Pyle's philosophy of illustration, and makes wild nonsensical claims about N.C. Wyeth's work methods. Of course, healthy doses of postmodernism and Freudianism make their appearances... meanwhile quotes are misreferenced and misunderstood and twisted to fit some weak theory of the authors that bears no relationship to the reality of creating illustration. The author selectively includes the few works that, with enough fanciful pseudo-intellectual inductions, bolster his non-starter of a theory.

For instance, the author has notions that flat backdrops in illustrations are specifically "theatrical" as in, related to the stage plays of the day, which were performed in a typical proscenium venue. Leaving aside that Howard Pyle's method is one of the most important steps in overturning false theatricality and led directly to "realistic" composition in art, film and television... This "theory" completely misunderstands the fact that, not only in art, but in life, form is relative. Objects in the far distance, for various reasons (atmospheric perspective, lack of stereoscopic parallax, etc), read as forward-facing nearly-flat planes, whereas solidity and dimensionality are the province of nearer objects where stereoscopic vision, focal zones, and exaggeration of perspective cause prominent 3D effect.

In addition to these facts, one of the essential principles of painting is that we are working with a narrow band of values, colors, and depth of field that must be dealt with, rather than ignored. In order to make some objects pop, other areas must be flat for contrast. And it is quite obvious that it is better to have your main character pop, than the trees or the sky in the far background that have no relationship to the story. The fact that this requirement of art dovetails with our optical reality would seem a widely understood phenomena among those interested in painting.

Of course the author, instead, takes his "theatricality theory" to the next level, claiming that Wyeth was deliberately sabotaging his work by making it look like badly staged theater in order to "create a metaphor about the profession of illustration itself as being false" because Wyeth was dissatisfied that he wasn't a fine art painter. :rolleyes: How he left out, quite by accident, the thousands of pictures by NC Wyeth that easily defeat his thesis, one can only wonder.

But then I googled his name, Alexander Nemerov, and found, you guessed it, that Mr. Nemerov is a Professor of Art History and American Art at Yale University.

Here's the link: http://arthistory.yale.edu/faculty/faculty/faculty_nemerov.html

Oh, and let's not forget that on his bio page one of his current projects is this gem of a revelation: (He is now at work on) a study of the artistic relationship of his father, the poet Howard Nemerov, and his aunt, the photographer Diane Arbus.

Love it.

kev

[Chris Bennett]

Another thing Kev, most of these guys have never painted a picture in their life. A large part of this stuff, and one sees it in 98% of books about artists, is just sociology. Their assumed expertise is derived from a complete unawareness of just how ignorant they are, usually sanctioned by the crudest of pictorial sensibilities to start with.

[dashinvaine]

Art academics can often get away with saying whatever nonsense they think sounds good. It's because art is rather subjective. In most other disciplines, science, say, or history, theories have to withstand the scrutiny and be backed by evidence. An art academic, however, can claim that Constable put dark clouds in a certain painting because of the state of his marriage or his soul, and everyone will think 'how profound, how learned'. (It could just have been that he saw some dark clouds.) Art criticism seems to have got mixed up with psycho-analysis, another sphere where the unproven theories of self-proclaimed experts have become gospel.

[bcarman]

There has always been a certain division between the maker/creators and the academics in education. Academics serve the role of documenting and categorizing our history, which in my estimation is still very important (I want to be remembered). Part of that documentation happens to be theory which is tremendously subjective despite the beliefs of many academics. I believe that there should be a balance between studying and doing. The funny thing is, in my experience, that academics usually are the most arrogant and egotistical. The makers just make. I stand firmly on the side of making only because I have the luxury of others teaching the art history, academic side of things. But things are usually out of balance. For example: Writing across the curriculum has been an emphasis at every university with which I have had a relationship. OK, writing is very important but in all of my years teaching I believe that the visual is equally important. We live in a visual world. In my studio classes one of the first things I say is that there will be no papers or reports written in my classes. First of all I don't want to have to read them but most important is the fact that at a university my students are already at a disadvantage having as many core classes as art classes. They write a lot in those. They write a lot in many of our foundation level classes. When they get to me I want them to draw, illustrate, and make art. What many people don't understand is that drawing, apart from being a physical activity, is thinking. When the english department initiates drawing across the curriculum I will consider writing in my class.

[Elwell]

In most other disciplines, science, say, or history, theories have to withstand the scrutiny and be backed by evidence.
Actually, Theory (capitalization intentional) has made substantial inroads into history and the social sciences, although there has been the beginnings of an inevitable generational pushback recently (the easiest way for young academics to establish a reputation is by opposing their predecessors). The hard sciences by their nature are less prone to this, and the attempted intrusions of Theory have been met with elegant responses such as the Sokal hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair).

[kev ferrara]

Actually, the "social sciences" are the origin of Theory in the first place. Art was only its first mark, and an easy one at that given the threat industrialization posed to the individual craftsperson. But History has been the main battlefront for at least 100 years. Because, as Orwell astutely observed, "He who controls the past controls the future".

[dashinvaine]

Actually, Theory (capitalization intentional) has made substantial inroads into history and the social sciences, although there has been the beginnings of an inevitable generational pushback recently (the easiest way for young academics to establish a reputation is by opposing their predecessors). The hard sciences by their nature are less prone to this, and the attempted intrusion of Theory have been met with elegant responses such as the Sokal hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair).

Wasn't aware of that one, but it's a similar to the more dramatic Rosenhan experiment, which is a good parable reminding one to be wary of confident-sounding 'experts'.

Actually, the "social sciences" are the origin of Theory in the first place. Art was only its first mark, and an easy one at that given the threat industrialization posed to the individual craftsperson. But History has been the main battlefront for at least 100 years. Because, as Orwell astutely observed, "He who controls the past controls the future".

The crux of the matter seems to be the problem of ideology impinging on scholarship. A recent example that springs to mind is the pseudohistorical fad that influenced the Da Vinci Code, rewriting history and art history to suit the ideological (and financial) purposes of certain parties. (Mary Magdalene in the the Last Supper etc.) However as academic history has method and rigour built into it, none of that nonsense gained headway in academia, and it remained a fringe theory albeit appealing to the uninformed masses. Postmodernist deconstructivists and art critics seem to have no such restraints on their theorizing. That's one reason that I gravitated towards history rather than art at uni, though I studied both. I was certainly put off by the cult of nonsense in the postmodernist module of the art side.

[kev ferrara]

Leaving aside the question of the influence of ideology in History, which would lead to a discursion... In terms of Art education, the only question is, how do we unseat the ideologues? How do we extract Nemerov from Yale? Given that he publishes the politically correct statements in his books, and given his aunt was Diane Arbus, the darling deceased photographer of a certain culturally dominant crowd. Given that we can't even extract some bobo without connections from some Community College somewhere.

This is a cultural hegemony equal to that of the church in its heyday.

The only solution, it seems to me, is to start the counter revolution through small schools and/or ateliers and word of mouth (a.k.a politics) and deal with every intrenched ideologue on a case by case basis.

[dashinvaine]

Art is one of the subjects where it may not be possible or desirable to purge ideology. It would be nice, however, to establish some sort of balance. For example, continuation of the classical tradition could be presented (at least some of the time) as an equally valid form of expression as continuing the ideas of the so-called 'modernists' and 'postmodernists'. So that there can be a broad church rather than one rigid orthodoxy anathamatizing all dissenters. I don't know if such a change within art education can be brought about by artists who've left that environment. Museums and influential collectors would have to be as much part of the equation. Why, I wonder, is the Modernist Reformation seen as irreversable, and not a mostly-regrettable aberration?

[Sulk-Sal]

It's because of those who hold the power. I've known illustrators list themselves as fine artists just so they could sell their work in a gallery.

Also, still fairly fresh from University, we were taught that Modernism and Postmodernism is who we are as artists, and it is that we must carry on. Truly there is something to be taken from it, but nothing could be further from who I am, not just as an artist, but as a person.

[Aaron Death]

Oops, I became very worried about going to learn art from a ordinary university now. Well, it seems prestigious art schools are there for a good reason.

[Sulk-Sal]

It's kinda everywhere. I did go to a big name art university. Not the biggest name, but no slouch either. As many here have said, the best thing you can do is ask questions, stick to the good teachers, and come here a lot.

[Reymus]

Given that we can't even extract some bobo without connections from some Community College somewhere.

Speaking of bobos, I talked to the "teacher" in question today in one of the most surreal conversations I've had in my 25 years of life. This was what I remember, verbatim (with some gist).

Me: Hi, I was a student of yours at X school, you taught color theory and a life drawing class.

Bobo: Hey how you doin', did you enjoy the class?

*5 minutes of casual bullshit conversation*

Me: So, what I really wanted to talk to you about was your teaching style, to me, you seemed out of your element. I know the school sometimes was short of teachers for these things...and I didn't get much out of the class.

Bobo: (sighs) Well sorry to tell you this kid (this man is 32) but maybe you didn't put into the class as much as you should've, I give to students what they give to me, if you're attentive, on time, you learn my material.

Me: But see the mater-

Bobo: Nevermind what you think I taught, if you knew the material (He said material at least a dozen times) then you'd have passed my class, I-

Me: I did pass your class.

Bobo: Good job, then I don't see the problem, you learn the basics, when I was at...........

*Continues ranting about teaching for a bit, I nod my head*

Me: I'm not sure, I mean, you did receive the complaints that over half the students in my class put in, right?

Bobo: I've never heard a complaint about my teaching, if you had a problem with it, I would've suggested you come to me or go to the department head.

*This starts an argument about his credentials, where he defends himself, when I haven't attacked or questioned them. Continues to rant, until the final word is his.*

Bobo: Obviously you didn't understand what was taught, maybe you should take the class again, you had a problem with it, that's your problem, not mine, maybe art ain't for you, maybe cause cause you don't understand the material taught, go google color wheel and you can help yourself, that's why I'm the teacher and you're the student, are you teaching now? At a school?

Me: What? No of course not. No.

Bobo: Thank you, now excuse me.

*Leaves*

That wasn't the whole thing, there were some gems about his aversion to muslim students in the school, how the faculty were lazy, why he taught at 3 places because they never paid enough, and a plan to start a production company.

[Opilione]

That's a really good point, and every art student (or any student period) should know that their education is mostly in their own hands. You only get out of it what you put in, even if you have the best of the best intructors. When most people have at least a handful of all but worthless instructors it means twice as much.
Indeed.

Teachers are humans. Everything said about teachers as a profession here can be applied to any workplace. Most humans are mediocre/average, thus the concept itself. If most of them weren't, there'd be no such thing as "average".

They therefore have lives outside of teaching. Some of them may put their career before everything else and thus be better teachers because of it. Some may not. Demonising those who don't doesn't help matters. There's pros and cons of both decisions and whilst a full-on career may work for some, it definitely doesn't for others. I've seen both sides of the fence first hand and I can't judge the choice with a generalisation. It's one of those things where it really is just down to the individual, and they then have to live with the consequences.

But there's an expectation in society that teachers are supposed to be these magical career-obsessed, life-sacrificing wizards to wave their wands over un-educated people for 20 or so years of their lives and at the end of it if the people coming out from under their tutelage aren't magically brilliant at any chosen career or well educated then obviously it's the teachers' fault and they're not as magical as we're all led to believe and they haven't shunned their family enough like all those tortured White Guys/Girld who go to teach underprivileged Black Kids in Harlem in those stupidly racist feel-good movies do. Or something.

Of course this is bullshit. I'm currently doing brain-numbing first-year art subjects with the biggest bunch of lazy SOBs you could imagine this side of the white-middle-class line in the sand. The most basic art theory course we're being taught that requires the most insanely small amount of study time outside the 3 hours of contact is the one that has to hold the hand of the whinging babies the most because it's a requirement for almost every degree the institution teaches, and yet there are still so many being spoon-fed everything who still don't get it. This is because some of them are lazy and some of them are just stupid. Almost all of them are too young to understand the importance of what they're being taught. But all the greatest teaching in the world doesn't mean squat if the person doesn't want to learn, and in my country there are a lot of kids in art schools who deep down don't want to be there.

Don't get me wrong. I am not excusing bad teachers. Art teachers have an especially hard time because we're not raised in a society that equips people in general with a proper artistic vocabulary they way they do with other forms of expression, and so trying to teach it when you're not versed in the proper voice yourself is nigh on impossible, and the profession suffers a lot from this, as well as the "can't do, teach" problem. Again, I've had art teachers from all of the above categories, as well as some who I thought wonderful and amazing at first and soon learned that yes, they are human and flawed as well and do not have all the answers. You have to stand on your own two feet, and choose to learn. Otherwise the most Magical teacher in the world won't be able to teach you shit.

Anyhoo, back to the original topic at hand, every high-level tertiary institution in my country requires course evaluations to be performed every semester by the majority of students in a subject. That is, they receive a piece of paper and fill out the details anonymously then hand them into the department as part of the performance review of the teachers. I don't know if this is the same in the US, but if you're really unsatisfied with your teacher, pursuing official performance review courses could be a good start.

For example, continuation of the classical tradition could be presented (at least some of the time) as an equally valid form of expression as continuing the ideas of the so-called 'modernists' and 'postmodernists'.
You mean like how you can go to a gallery where they have all sorts of art hanging on their walls from all sorts of times and movements and ideologies.

Or art schools where they teach a broad range of artforms and often have cross-school shared subjects in all the movements you mentioned?

Or, an even better idea! A global communication device that allows millions of people to access information on any sort of art movement or practice they choose, with the click of a few simple buttons.

Oh wait...

Why, I wonder, is the Modernist Reformation seen as irreversable, and not a mostly-regrettable aberration?
Because you wouldn't be sitting here whinging about it if it wasn't the former. Reactionary movements (of which the said modernist reformation was) are still fueled by irreversable actions that have gone before, no matter how much they plump their plumage and protest otherwise. Oh, woops, sorry about that, I used a little bit of scary theory in there to explain something. So sorry!

[Zaxser]

Opilione, I'd really like to see some of your drawings. I can't find any.

Could you post some, pretty please?

[Opilione]

I'm not comfortable posting my work anywhere online for a number of reasons.

[RyerOrdStar]

Opilione, I'd really like to see some of your drawings. I can't find any.

Could you post some, pretty please?

Now what in the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand?

[Pigeonkill]

Reymus...that was a weird conversation and took some guts to do. If it were a student who was in the process of taking his class questioning is his teaching methods...that might be grade suicide if they get offended.

[kev ferrara]

I think it is almost impossible to do decent artwork unless one knows a boatload of information. I think those who know a boatload of information yet can't do creditable work only think they know the information they know. This is the way the whole school system is set up, unfortunately. If you can duplicate the word that has been assigned taxonomically to some element of interest, you "know" the information. This is the core philosophical error of the entire educational enterprise.

If a teacher truly knows the information, I say his work will be good. Period. The same goes for a student critiquing a teacher. The evidence of the student's ability and effort should be right there on the paper. So, to me, I want to see a person's work before I listen to them. Call me nutty.

We just happen to have on this thread, Elwell, who demonstrably knows his business, Rpace, who knows his business, and BCarman, whose avatar is silly, but whose actual work demonstrates that he knows his business. When they speak, I grant them authority based on their work. (I don't know who else on this thread is a teacher, so sorry If I've left anybody out). I've met enough art teacher who can't teach and whose work demonstrates that they do no know their subject, to be a bit hard-headed on this topic.

Anyway,
kev

[rpace]

Most humans are mediocre/average, thus the concept itself.

They may be average, but I doubt they see themselves as such or actually aspire to mediocrity. It takes a certain amount of self-analysis and honesty to look at oneself and say "I'm average". It's even harder for the generations of younger people raised with that "everyone is special and just making an effort deserves a gold star".

That may be okay if you're prepping people for non-competitive jobs; average and mediocre people are needed for the jobs you need to be average and mediocre to be satisfied with. The visual arts is an increasingly competitive field and is really suitable for the above-average.

It's not just that we have too many bad teachers, we have too many schools that can only offer compromised programs.

I think the best thing that could happen would be a vast wipe-out of all the vaguely sleazy career college arts schools and reset to real solid and difficult to get into big schools and places like Watts (which takes a very long-term approach) or CA atelier (which has the feel of a learning apprenticeship). The arts education is another place where capitalism hasn't worked effectively.l

Too much education is designed around convenience for the student and the costs of the education and not enough on what it really takes to start working at a professional level.

We have in place a formula that requires bad teachers for these institutions to function so they can service the hordes of students that are required by the society at large to do something when they're done attending high school.

This discussion really leads to far grander and more sweeping demands of our education systems and societal expectations.

Rant for the day done -- time to draw!

~Richard

[Orcane]

Any Photoshop teacher who uses an overhead projector and zooms his cursor around at the speed of light. Nothing wrong with the overhead projector. But it's virtually impossible to follow along and keep up when the teacher whips the cursor around at the speed of light. Some teachers are just plain ignorant.

[Chris Bennett]

Now what in the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand?

I think Kev has just answered it.

[RyerOrdStar]

By his logic, no student here can complain about a teacher because technically they don't "know" what they're talking about. No one can ever have a discussion about art unless they know how to do it well. And by well we mean by a certain aesthetic standard. And no viewer of art can have an opinion about it because they can't do it. It's all just the same hackneyed arguments used again and again to make some people's opinions more respected than others, and thus irrefutable.

[Opilione]

Now what in the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand?
It's okay, he was probably just asking. I've had such requests before, and only the minority of them have been malicious.

Kev and Chris are right their charming little roundabout way - before I started school again I disliked a lot of my work because I thought it sucked, and it did. Now I don't dislike as much of it but I'm trying to function at a tabula rasa stage in terms of skills so I can be as open to the ones I'm being taught as possible, no matter what my opinion on the teachers involved because it's not about them, it's about me, pure and simple. I want a career out of the end of my degree? It's all about the hard work I put in, and I don't want to compromise that too much. In the past I've also found posting my stuff online creates a bad psychological block for a lot of reasons and takes away some of the things I love about my art, which just adds to the blocking of the creative process. There's no point to it, and not doing it doesn't negate my statements about teachers, a group of people who I know rather well on the side of the fence most people don't get to see.

But kev's post has one problem - most of the greatest artists in the world would be the worst teachers in the world, because as I pointed out in my post, most of the core of learning does not rest on the shoulders of teachers, and there are very few teachers who can overcome it even with the training they receive for the profession. If the student wanted to learn in the way they should then they could probably do all the hard work themselves, but the artists in no way would be doing any of the teaching, it would all rest on the shoulders of the apprentice - funny that. Maybe those kev is reffering to can strike the balance with teaching, as well as being excellent artists. But being brilliant at one does not necessarily cause the other, as with most teachers in all professions. One doesn't have to be an exceptional writer to be a good English teacher. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to be a science teacher. And so on and so forth. It helps, sure, but it's not a 100% necessity.

Anyone who thinks it is has never taught.

[~Faust~]

One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to be a science teacher

But doesn't one have to be a rocket scientist to teach rocket science?

[bcarman]

Kev, it took me hours to draw that avatar. Chris you're right, of course we listen more to those who are proven in their area of expertise. It shouldn't, but the question has always existed: Does one need to be really good in order to teach? A lot of art programs, especially graduate programs, are more keen on criticism and theory than on doing and making. And of course we are influenced every day by critics who have never made a movie or picked up a musical insrument. So you too can be an expert even if you don't do. The first day of class we have a "get to know you" day. Students share a bit about themselves with me and then I show them work and outline my background. When I was in school I remember going through the whole program and never, or very seldom, seeing the work of many teachers. I heard the excuse "I don't want the students unduly influenced by my work". Well if your work sucks no need to worry about that and if it's good maybe they can learn something from a little emulation. I challenge my guys to ask their profs to show them work and share what they are doing currently. They have a right to expect teachers who are current and active. Too many people demand respect merely because of a title. I expect to earn it as I expect my students to earn my respect. Ahh, if the apprentice system were only viable.

[Opilione]

But doesn't one have to be a rocket scientist to teach rocket science?
Point to a point, but I would suggest that art isn't rocket science. Well, it's currently not. The problem with current discourse of Art in Western society is that we're incredibly art-retarded, and thus teachers have to teach basic stuff that should be taught in kindergarten to end-teens/20-somethings in tertiary education and have to cram a lifetime of art education in 3-4years (or sometimes less, if you're doing a diploma). The more rocket-sciencey stuff is usually kept for postgrad, in which the student moves into a focused apprentice-like role with a supervisor.

Or at least, they do in my country, so ymmv for places like England and the US.

[The Acidraptor]

The education system is sooo watered down with too many fake teachers...
That's why I stopped going to school & rather rely on books...

[Chris Bennett]

By his logic, no student here can complain about a teacher because technically they don't "know" what they're talking about. No one can ever have a discussion about art unless they know how to do it well. And by well we mean by a certain aesthetic standard. And no viewer of art can have an opinion about it because they can't do it. It's all just the same hackneyed arguments used again and again to make some people's opinions more respected than others, and thus irrefutable.

No-one would expect, or want, a non-pilot to teach someone how to fly an aeroplane. If you wanted to be a golfer you would go to someone who could play the game to a high standard. To teach skills you must be able to do them inside out yourself. You cannot just 'talk the talk', you must demonstrably be able to 'walk the walk'. Now, the student's job is to ask questions - it is what they are there to do. The teacher answers them. The student doesn't agree with the teacher. That's their business.

The problem occurs when there is the assumption that these things are all subjective. "Who the hell's right anyway?" "We aren't learning to fly aeroplanes, it's art for Christ's sake!" But if you attend a school then you are complicit with the idea that there are real, concrete things to be learnt. How do we judge, in the arts, who are the best people to do this? By their own work and their ability to transfer the understanding of how they achieve it clearly and consistently to others.

On these boards we have a whole mix of people, it's like the wild west on here but with some good Marshals (Howdy Elwell) to keep things from going apeshit. The old timers mix with the trigger happy youngsters and there is genuine cross feeding. I regularly post stuff in the 'Finally Finished' section because I am genuinely interested by what different people's take is on what I have to show. People with very little experience have the advantage of an innocence of perception that the proffesional has to strive to maintain. The way I learn from the inexperienced is quite different to the way they might learn from me. Hence there is fruit to be harvested from the situation, but it is different fruits.

[RyerOrdStar]

I think you misunderstood my objection to what he said. I agree that teachers have to be able to do what they teach. But Opilione was not trying to teach that person how to make art, he was offering his own opinion on a topic. That is not grounds for the "oh lemme see your art so I can see if I should listen to you" post. And for the record, I agree with your and kev's posts completely.

[Chris Bennett]

Kev, it took me hours to draw that avatar. Chris you're right, of course we listen more to those who are proven in their area of expertise. It shouldn't, but the question has always existed: Does one need to be really good in order to teach? A lot of art programs, especially graduate programs, are more keen on criticism and theory than on doing and making. And of course we are influenced every day by critics who have never made a movie or picked up a musical insrument. So you too can be an expert even if you don't do. The first day of class we have a "get to know you" day. Students share a bit about themselves with me and then I show them work and outline my background. When I was in school I remember going through the whole program and never, or very seldom, seeing the work of many teachers. I heard the excuse "I don't want the students unduly influenced by my work". Well if your work sucks no need to worry about that and if it's good maybe they can learn something from a little emulation. I challenge my guys to ask their profs to show them work and share what they are doing currently. They have a right to expect teachers who are current and active. Too many people demand respect merely because of a title. I expect to earn it as I expect my students to earn my respect. Ahh, if the apprentice system were only viable.

I think it is the 'what' of the teaching rather than the 'how'. The 'how' will neccessarily mean a distribution of talanted teachers and journeyman hacks and applies to any subject of learning. It's a fact of life. But the 'what' being taught in most art schools is, to put it bluntly, a concensus of hot air. Vague literary meanderings put together by non-practitioners, or failed practitioners, that have coalesced by their own self protective attraction into the dogma we know as Post Modernism. So, this 'what' is infecting the 'how' by virtue of replacing those who have practical understanding of their craft with those who chant post modern dogma and are kept there by the high priests.

[kev ferrara]

By his logic, no student here can complain about a teacher because technically they don't "know" what they're talking about. No one can ever have a discussion about art unless they know how to do it well. And by well we mean by a certain aesthetic standard. And no viewer of art can have an opinion about it because they can't do it. It's all just the same hackneyed arguments used again and again to make some people's opinions more respected than others, and thus irrefutable.

We're not discussing talking, we're discussing teaching. Teaching is different than talking. Talking can be birdsong and still be talking. Teaching is about delivering and demonstrating principles. A principle works. Opinions are air. Some people like to listen to opinions and enjoy communication for its own sake. That's great. But nobody should be paying for principles and getting opinions instead.

A student's work will demonstrate its effort. Certain principles will be inapplicable to some students because some students just aren't talented enough. Talent, sensitivity, intelligence, drive, reading comprehension, emotional stability... these things are not evenly distributed.

[Chris Bennett]

I think you misunderstood my objection to what he said. I agree that teachers have to be able to do what they teach. But Opilione was not trying to teach that person how to make art, he was offering his own opinion on a topic. That is not grounds for the "oh lemme see your art so I can see if I should listen to you" post. And for the record, I agree with your and kev's posts completely.

That's a fair point RyerOrdStar and I agree with the distinction.

[rpace]

But being brilliant at one does not necessarily cause the other, as with most teachers in all professions. One doesn't have to be an exceptional writer to be a good English teacher. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to be a science teacher. And so on and so forth. It helps, sure, but it's not a 100% necessity.

A good English teacher needs to know all the rules of the language, a good science teacher has to know enough science to know what he's talking about and have a deeper knowledge so as to direct more advanced students. Both these types of teachers generally follow government directed curricula, so much of the work is actually done for them before they enter the class. So you're correct in instances such as these, but you're 100% wrong when it comes to a good visual arts education.

A good drawing teacher has to know how to draw and how to communicate the process. If the instructor doesn't know how to draw well, they won't be able to see where a drawing goes right and where it goes wrong. Good drawing isn't a math problem, its rules are ephemeral and only apply when they do.

Sadly, most drawing programs lack the deep research and investment into the education process as English or science and we have to rely on teachers to sift through how they were taught, the available and most popular texts and how they think the students should learn to draw.

Traditional education methods don't apply to drawing or painting. Most of the popular texts have as much crap as gold between their covers (like Nicolaides) and most teachers don't really think about how the students are taking in, retaining or applying the information. Honestly, only by teaching myself. did I discover how poorly that last, most important aspect is examined.

Too much of arts education is based on the hope that the doing of any exercise will impart the necessary information so the student can replicate it on their own later. This is an artifact of the style of teaching done in English and science classes across the world.

You don't need to be good at drawing to be a drawing teacher, but you will never find a good drawing teacher who can't draw. Being good a drawing won't make you a good drawing teacher, either, but it's a prerequisite.

[Reymus]

.A good drawing teacher has to know how to draw and how to communicate the process. If the instructor doesn't know how to draw well, they won't be able to see where a drawing goes right and where it goes wrong. Good drawing isn't a math problem, its rules are ephemeral and only apply when they do.

Exactly! I'm not going to argue what constitutes "art", eye of the beholder, and so forth. But to have a instructor, whose body of work is layout of lines, or throwing diapers on a mattress and taking photos of it, and then have that person teach figure drawing (when he has no experience drawing) seems akin to getting a mechanic to teach biochemistry. He *might* know how, but chances are he won't.

Perhaps post-modern art breeds people who skip say, figure drawing, perspective, color, etc, and those courses spew out quasi artists/theologians.

All I know is for every dozen hack teachers, or slob who shits in a bag and calls it "Mourning the sunset, reflection on self (Taking productivity)" there's another guy who works his ass off with little to no reward, sometimes.

Take the teacher I talked to for instance, because the system is in place, he can argue and get his way, take home a paycheck, have a steady job, all the while skirting the system teaching courses he has no business teaching, possibly because of shortage of teachers, or complacency of the administration (more likely). Another point is that while talking to this guy, he truly believed he was 1. An extremely good teacher 2. Regarded criticism of his work or teaching with anger 3. You must be at his level to criticize him. I suppose you just cannot reason with some people.

-Pigeonkill
I talked to the guy 2 years now after graduation, so it didn't take guts, just some beer.

[Mike from Toronto]

They may be average, but I doubt they see themselves as such or actually aspire to mediocrity. It takes a certain amount of self-analysis and honesty to look at oneself and say "I'm average". It's even harder for the generations of younger people raised with that "everyone is special and just making an effort deserves a gold star".

That may be okay if you're prepping people for non-competitive jobs; average and mediocre people are needed for the jobs you need to be average and mediocre to be satisfied with. The visual arts is an increasingly competitive field and is really suitable for the above-average.

It's not just that we have too many bad teachers, we have too many schools that can only offer compromised programs.

I think the best thing that could happen would be a vast wipe-out of all the vaguely sleazy career college arts schools and reset to real solid and difficult to get into big schools and places like Watts (which takes a very long-term approach) or CA atelier (which has the feel of a learning apprenticeship). The arts education is another place where capitalism hasn't worked effectively.l

Too much education is designed around convenience for the student and the costs of the education and not enough on what it really takes to start working at a professional level.

We have in place a formula that requires bad teachers for these institutions to function so they can service the hordes of students that are required by the society at large to do something when they're done attending high school.

This discussion really leads to far grander and more sweeping demands of our education systems and societal expectations.
~Richard

I think you’ve just gotten to the heart of the issue in this discussion about bad teaching and how is has grown to epic proportions.

Our learning institutions are reacting to the basic laws of supply and demand, based on what society expects and values: the expectation of having a degree that will lead to a guaranteed job and career. This magic piece of paper that will automatically open doors after graduation.

It’s not about your education to be a competent artist. It is about the growing and servicing of the vast art establishment bureaucracy within the learning institutions. Their concern is to turn out product - students - and not necessarily ones with demonstrable skills. Their concerns are about keeping their jobs, and increasing their yearly income and pension benefits.

In this light it makes sense. The art institutions are trying to maximize a profit by processing as many students as they can. As long as society values their diploma certificates above the actual skills learned then this situation will continue. There are only so many good teachers to go around - and certainly not enough to meet this artificial demand created by easy standards of entry, expectations that anything you do as an artist is acceptable, and the fostered belief by the students that success is a certainty once the degree is obtained.

How can this situation change? It must start with ourselves to demand that real skills be taught in these institutions and ask to see any instructor’s portfolio before signing up for any class - including, seeking out private instruction and private type art schools. I would venture that the private school approach would have a higher chance of success because these schools rely of the real success of their teaching and methods - or people will simply not pay the higher real costs to go there. They also are not so caught up in the government bureaucracy of funding and “standards” of requiring art teachers to have degrees to teach. Art teachers should know how to create art, and know how to teach - not necessarily be required to have a master’s degree in art and still be unable to draw.

It comes down to the students taking responsibility of their own education based on their own goals. Do you want to acquire real fundamental art making skills, do you want to kill time after high school, or is your focus to have an art degree at a credited university?
Parents, with their greater life experience, can be a great asset in helping to separate the wheat from the chaff on helping their children realize their goals and full potential. If we hold the aquisition of real art skills as a standard, then there is hope.


Mike

[J Wilson]

... I'm currently doing brain-numbing first-year art subjects with the biggest bunch of lazy SOBs you could imagine this side of the white-middle-class line in the sand. The most basic art theory course we're being taught that requires the most insanely small amount of study time outside the 3 hours of contact is the one that has to hold the hand of the whinging babies the most because it's a requirement for almost every degree the institution teaches, and yet there are still so many being spoon-fed everything who still don't get it. ...

I agree there isn't much an instructor can do with students that won't put in time and effort on their own behalf. My bigger issue is with teachers that don't know the subject they should be teaching, or have approaches so abstract that the students are essentially teaching themselves. Every student owes it to themselves to be responsible for their own education, but at the same time the teachers owe it to the students to actually pass along the information the students wish to know.

We did have students reviews of teachers at my art school, and we got a lot of teachers replaced, however that didn't mean we got refunds on classes. My foundation year in particular was horrible, filled with filler classes taught by people who shouldn't have been teaching. There was no teaching in some of those classes, just baby sitting time with arts and crafts.

[J Wilson]

Leaving aside the question of the influence of ideology in History, which would lead to a discursion... In terms of Art education, the only question is, how do we unseat the ideologues? How do we extract Nemerov from Yale? Given that he publishes the politically correct statements in his books, and given his aunt was Diane Arbus, the darling deceased photographer of a certain culturally dominant crowd. Given that we can't even extract some bobo without connections from some Community College somewhere.

This is a cultural hegemony equal to that of the church in its heyday.


I live in New Haven (which is where Yale is located). I worked for a couple of years at an art store across from the Yale art school. I made it a point to regularly check out the student art shows. 90% crap. A lot of stuff glued to walls, or art created around gimmicks. I was able to talk to the students, and half admitted they weren't taught art, except the fine art of bullshit. The other half bought that bullshit so fully it's all they knew, and they had the egos to go with it. Sadly, Yale being Yale I have no doubt that some of them became relative successes just based on having Yale contacts and the school listed on their bio.

I never saw Mr Nemerov, but then why would we expect an art history teacher to have anything to do with actual art and artists? Afterall, knowing something of art couldn't give any insight into the artists could it?

[TASmith]

A lot of my art teachers were helpful in showing me how not to teach.

[Orcane]

Some of the posts here bring to mind the great football coaches who were mediocre players. Or the saying, 'the worst soldier sometimes makes the best warrior.'

[kev ferrara]

There's a huge difference between what a football coach and a football player's experience is like. They are almost unrelated in terms of skill sets. There is more similarity between a football coach, a general, and a chess player, than a football coach and a football player, or a general and a grunt.

I just wanted to point out how good the student work at Watts atelier looks to me. Or the students of Fred Fixler. Frank Reilly used to say he could teach a wooden indian to draw and paint. Clearly, there is a body of information out there that is principled and clarifying and which can be communicated.

We should celebrate the good as much as revile the bad.

[rpace]

Seconding what Kev is saying; football players/coaches is a horrible analogy as presented in this case . Though, to be fair, many players have gone on to be great position coaches, just not that many have made great head coaches, which is about as close as football can cleave to the discussion at hand.

[Opilione]

The difference between a football coach and a teacher is that a teacher serves more masters, though.

You have to make the students happy - even if the class is twice the size it's supposed to be - and the school (and often, you answer to a few different people in a school), and if it's lower level you have the parents wanting their babies to become the new Andy Warhols, and the industry that your students feed into often make stupid demands on tertiary institutions to pump out clones to fill their required positions, and then at the end of it all, maybe, you might have time to answer to yourself and your artistic needs.

One of my current teachers is a classic example. The woman is a brilliant artist and an amazing teacher, but I can tell in our classes she's currently under a lot of stress, and not just because the class size is huge and some of the students are taking a ridiculously long amount of time to get their shit sorted at the beginning of term. Thus, I'd honestly say her teaching isn't as good as it probably is when she has a much smaller class and she's not stressing about the school renovating her studio and damaging all her paintings (found this out from a second-year the other day) which are supposed to be showing in an exhibition later in the year. She sometimes forgets things she needs to bring to class and so on.

I really admire art teachers like her who can put so much into their ridiculously overdemanding classes and still somewhere find time to keep their own career as an artist going. You don't get to keep being a quarterback when you're a football coach.

[Yng]

I'm under the impression that the people who are artist first, and teachers second, are much better at teaching than the people who are just art teachers. This is my fifth year of studying art, and I've barely seen my teachers draw a line, which is really sad.

And to give an answer to the original post: Send the guy an anonymous letter using words cut out from magazines, telling him to stop teaching.

[Zarahn Southon]

[QUOTE=kev ferrara;2184068] Teaching is about delivering and demonstrating principles. A principle works.]

I agree Kev, teaching principles is at the zenith of art practice. When a student can digest and question a principle it can make there work better. I apply what I teach to my own art practice and have endeavored to improve these principles over the years.

A teacher has to become the student and apply their principle's to each students work. Each student has different needs and some get out of it more than others it really depends on if a teacher can inspire the students to be focused and concentrated, of course there will always be the rare exceptions.

From experience I've had my fare share of dodgy teachers, but as a teacher now its a lesson on not how to be.

Now I don't want to lecture and correct me if I'm wrong but I have noticed one or two threads on here that got a little prejudiced toward the elderly, and I want to say stop the B.S.

I just had lessons from Ted seth Jacobs now in his 82nd year and his eye and knowledge of principle is as sharp as a katana sword. He cut me down evertime!! His teachers were Frank Reily and Vincent Dummond- who was in his 90th year when he taught him at the Art Students League.

Ted's one of those rare guys that to this day is continually applying and honing principles that he has formulated through his own practice and teaching for the past 70 years. He likes the debate with students when you can call him on his principles that he teaches- he'll go out of his way to explain -even if he thinks you're a dumbF'k . LOL.

The art establishment is just another sign of the time, its up there with hyper inflation. With regard to getting mad about education just get out there and start looking for a teacher or teachers that are right for you. I know it can suck sometimes but don't get angry and scared that you're not learning.

... 70 years ago there was a failed german painter whose anger was fueled by lack of an art education. He saw no room for any other art other than the one he saw fit. With this narrow vision of the world he decided to destroy the world and all with it and start again...

As a cheesy wise one once said ".... Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering....." :frustrated:

[rpace]

I think inept teachers are inept teachers regardless of age. While in college I learned most of the practical knowledge of being an illustrator from Frank Neufeld who was getting ready to retire. He was a model in open-mindedness toward contemporary culture and understanding that anything in a commercial arena must be aware of its broader culture.

One of the worst examples of prejudice is actually coming from the other direction; students being condemned for liking elements of the culture they live in. It takes a certain degree of arrogance to call the whole of currrent pop culture garbage. It's only as true as it was when I was in college as it was when the previous generation was in college and on and on.

There's a certain type of myopia and elitism than can set in with age, which spells ruin for any teacher. The best, of course, avoid it.

~Richard

[KalahariRover]

Great art teachers are not necessarily great artists, and vice versa, as we all know.

Since this person's issue is in teaching skills, why not just point them to the teacher you liked best in your school, and have them get some guidance on teaching technique?

[Zarahn Southon]

.... He was a model in open-mindedness toward contemporary culture and understanding that anything in a commercial arena must be aware of its broader culture.

There's a certain type of myopia and elitism than can set in with age, which spells ruin for any teacher. The best, of course, avoid it.

~Richard



I agree Richard an open mind to contemporary culture is extremly important. I've worked in some Ateliers where nostalgia for the Victorian age was sickening! Most Ateliers are just rehashing and trying to copy old methods. There are alot of unhappy S.O.B's feeling jilted by contemporary culture.

Although I'm a figure artist myself some of my teachers and colleagues for advice has come from abstract artists, and installation artists. Most decent abstract artists will apply principles of composition and colour to their work.

One last thing I've found that theres nothing wrong with elitism in teaching as long as its not false and the teacher has knowledge to share. Don't you want to learn from someone that is selective and superior in their field?

Rembrandt was a "heavy weight" Elitist and created the best artists to match.

[rpace]

Actually, I meant "elitist"in a pejoritive sense in this case. The person I'm thinking about held everything she was interested in (culture/entertainment) as being vastly superior to anything else.

I have no problem with pushing students to be among the elite and using the best methods and practices, but that wasn't how I was using it. Sorry for being unclear.

~R

[kev ferrara]

I carry no brief for Victorian Art. Most of it is just as bad as any other art, percentage wise, and I think most ateliers that teach "Victorian art principles" are doing no such thing. They are only teaching how to produce surfaces reminiscent of that era's artworks.

My issue is with the rationales made for Modern Art. In my view, they are nonsensical and based on the arbitration of non-artist critics who held far too much sway and led the culture, by leading the money, down a dead end road. This has resulted in an institutionalized industry of cynicism in place of a vibrant art world.

If we can have a generation of artists as free as the modernists yet as disciplined as the old masters, and with something they would like to say, then we'll have something.

Until then, it's all just dancing about architecture.

kev

[Zarahn Southon]

Yes I agree with your argument against " the rationales made for modern art." The art establishments are in a dismal state, but the same with almost everything else.

One of my main concerns against "nostalgia for Victorian art principles" is that it is a digression. Would we know Rubens if all he did was "produce surfaces" that emulated the work of Botticelli?

Also isn't C.A a fair representation of a generation of artists with the freedom of the Modernists yet have the discipline of the Old masters?

[kev ferrara]

Do you mean, "a regression?"

There is an implicit assumption in your post that simply because Modernism came after Klimt, Fechin, Van Gogh, Inness, Sargent, Degas, Rodin, Brangwyn, Waterhouse, et al, it must be considered a Progression from these artists. This is a political idea, not an aesthetic one. I think more and more people interested in the arts are looking back to the era before World War One because people are reassessing whether Modernism was really the Progression it claimed itself to be. Personally, I see it as a derailment caused by the intersection of war, politics and the industrial revolution, although I love cartoons, which are a close relative to Modernism. I like Modernist art too, I just don't think it is deeper than the wall, generally.

I think the artist I mentioned above, Klimt, Fechin, Brangwyn, and many illustators of the 1920s and 30s were a generation that had the freedom of the modernists and yet were as highly trained (actually moreso) than the old masters.

[Zarahn Southon]

Sorry guys..yes 'regression' english was never my strong point at school.

Kev I don't think I mentioned Klimt, Van Gogh etc...although when I was at art school they taught me that alot of the artists you mention invented modernism? Some say it started in the 18th century..Hhmm..I don't know...and I can't say which era is better than any other era either..thats a real tough one.

I.m.o art and life are one. The line between politics and aesthetics is vague.

I believe that if you look at the teaching methods advocated by Socialist Realism, National Socialism, or even back to Baroque painting you will find parallels with their principles and the age to which they lived.

I.M.O a teacher can greatly effect an individuals perception of their world therefore the methods taught will in the long run have an impact be it great or small on the political and social environment to which that artist belongs.

My dig at Victorian principles in art is only based on my experience. As well as the fact that being an indegenous of New Zealand, Victorian art - and I gotta say some of my favourite artists are from that era- while aspects of it played a positive role in shaping the Nation most of it played a more negative role in colonial attitudes to the suppression of the indigenous people of New Zealand to which continue to this day.

I mention Rpace when he alluded to teachers being to narrow minded in their teaching practice and I have first hand experience of this in some of the Atelier run programmes I've had the chance and good fortune to work in.

I found that my time studying in Ateliers that over emphasized copying and rehashing old victorian styles created some beautifully crafted work but with it sometimes some unusual attitudes to contemporary culture and art. Also don't think I went with a hidden agenda against victorian art, it was quite the opposite, but I realized quickly that some of the methods and principles taught with the nostalgia for the past had the tendency to create ''totalitarian" attitudes.

I use both 19th century principles and modern conceptual theories taught to me at art school in my practice, I have either used some of it or discarded principles not beneficial to mine and my students needs.

Yes I agree we are at the start of something new in art training, as the conceptual art movement of the 1970s like most ideals put into practice has had its day... artists, like Reymus, have stood up and asked for something more.

I.m.o Figure painting has to be more progressive in its philosophy, I will quote Ted Jacobs as he believes that rehashing old methods only adds weight to the "painting is dead" theory.

I found a more investigative and progressive approach to drawing and painting through studying the work of Tony Ryder, and attending classes at Studio Escalier under Tim Stotz, Michelle Tully and Ted Seth Jacobs. Studying there reiterated my hunch of there being more to figurative painting than just rehashing " Old Master techniques and styles". They've pooled a wealth of ideas from past and present designed to push figurative painting into another realm. Anyway I should just shut the hell up and let you read Tims mission statement on their website.

http://studioescalier.com/image/mission.html


Lastly I want to make an apology to anyone in this forum that felt that my haphazard remark about "Victorian principles and unhappy S.O.Bs in art" was offensive. I was just stating a fact from my experience and yes sure we all have different experiences of traditional painting atelier run programs.

And yes one program doesn't necessarily work for everyone, and not one is better than the other, I am only talking about my own experience.

Didn't mean to offend anyone..

Peace.

[kev ferrara]

"Couldn't you just make photos, why did you have to draw, there's no difference"
hmpf

Edit: this is a school where the students are encouraged to work on an intellectual level with great creative concepts, technical abilities are secondary

Kiera, your teacher is a fucking clueless, indoctrinated moron. And dangerous to your artmaking. If your teacher can't understand that human perception is a thousand times more sensitive in a thousand different ways from a camera, she should be fired instantly. A camera cannot observe with emotion. When a human being draws, the emotions come into play. A camera just takes what is in front of it. A human being selects, discards, exaggerates, diminishes in order to get the effect of what they see, the emotional effect of seeing life and movement and colors and what that means to a human heart... not just the surfaces. Do you think a camera gives a fuck about a spring day? Cameras capture surfaces at an instant in time. Art captures life and it is that captured life (known as gesture) that makes art live on its own. We see the gesture in surfaces and between one surface and another and we idealize those gestures to our liking. Then in capturing the surface we capture the gesture. And we marry our idea and the reality. That's art.

Your teacher is totally totally fucking clueless. God this makes me so mad.

Sorry for rant and cursing.

kev

[Aaron Death]

this is a school where the students are encouraged to work on an intellectual level with great creative concepts, technical abilities are secondary,

It's like teaching you to write clever French poems without teaching you to speck French first.

[Pigeonkill]

I'm just ranting because I filled a 110 page thick sketchbook in 2 weeks with a ton of lifedrawings and the comment I get to hear by my teacher as I show it to him is
"Couldn't you just make photos, why did you have to draw, there's no difference"


ROFL , that's almost unbelievable. That's almost just as bad as going to a cooking school and the instructor tells you, "Don't bother cooking, just buy your meals instead."

But hey you are on the right path keep plowing away and fill up that sketchbook. Your teacher doesn't have to understand, just keep focusing and making real progress.

[karmiclychee]

...
Also isn't C.A a fair representation of a generation of artists with the freedom of the Modernists yet have the discipline of the Old masters?

I'd agree with that statement. The problem, I discovered, is that most "fine" artists see the work that we do here as too commercial, not free enough. Which is to say, we look down on vomit-on-a-canvas whereas fine artists see that as their prerogative, even the quintessential epitome of their "freedom of expression." I got sneered at in art school (I held out an entire semester before being driven insane) for suggesting that something was bad because it was unreadable. The other student said something to the effect of "well, if the viewer doesn't understand it, then fuck him," and I argued that if the reader was lost, you've essentially failed as a communicator. Expression without communication is what crazy people do on the subway - they talk to themselves.

[hitnrun]

Some serious horror stories in here. Mine is just a professor who was the sole flaw in an otherwise flawless art department. Unfortunately that particular professor was teaching a pretty important class. But I loved it where I went to college previously, and sometimes I wish I was back there.

[Orban]

I'm too in a school where most teacher don't know what and how to teach.
To be honest, if it was for the teacher only, I would have lost 5 years of my life in this school – except for one.

As with Kiera, I got a clueless moron in drawing – when I was working on my skill in life drawing, well, he was not happy. It was no good not because I was, well, more classic than most student. I was willing to learn anatomy, how to see and so on... But to no avail.
I love drawing abstract things. But I'd love to be able to draw a portrait withtout major pain too, or whatever I want to draw.
And it was really no good in abstract art too... We were getting philosophy thrown at our face without some key concept to understand it, nor a sufficient knowledge in what was before us. So... to wrote beautifull french poem without even knowing french before, hoping that at some point, in a magic way, we would "get" it.

That's why I've switch to lithography print – at least I'm free to work how I want and I got to learn something I love (printing). I still can't "draw" as well as I want, but I'm progressing, despite those teachers.
And I got the chance to be friend with the etching and other engraving technique, who is an amazing teacher – who try to understand what we do, and how he can empower us to attain our goal – be it by showing us how to pay attention when we draw, our pointing at us what can be flaw in our work. But he's a rare one.

[Ninjerk]

I.m.o Figure painting has to be more progressive in its philosophy, I will quote Ted Jacobs as he believes that rehashing old methods only adds weight to the "painting is dead" theory.

I found a more investigative and progressive approach to drawing and painting through studying the work of Tony Ryder, and attending classes at Studio Escalier under Tim Stotz, Michelle Tully and Ted Seth Jacobs. Studying there reiterated my hunch of there being more to figurative painting than just rehashing " Old Master techniques and styles". They've pooled a wealth of ideas from past and present designed to push figurative painting into another realm. Anyway I should just shut the hell up and let you read Tims mission statement on their website.

http://studioescalier.com/image/mission.html


I've been wanting to reply to this for a couple of weeks now. I'm taking classes with a guy who has Tony Ryder's figure drawing book on his desk, and I swear I hear out of him some of the same things I've seen in this thread (re: grammar and poetry, technical learning). Apparently they are or were friends to some degree, as well. I've heard the name Harvey Sadow in the same club, as well (teacher or administrator in some school in Kentucky, I met him a few months ago, really nice guy).

[CCThrom]

Expression without communication is what crazy people do on the subway...

I just added that to my list of awesome artist's quotes!

[B-Ren]

Wow, as a student about to go into college (not for art), this topic is a little scary to read.

[Spirit]

Just to add my small two cents here... very intimidating thread, I agree witn B-Ren on that :P

Anyway... I find it annoying when art teachers always focus on certain students. It is fair enough when they need the help they are getting, but when the teachers neglect the rest of their class, things start to slide. I find it even more annoying when the people they are helping don't event need the help, and aren't putting any effort into learning themselves, so it's basically just laziness. I have seen one student in my previous class, who did NO work outside of lesson time, and made the teachers do all the work for them. The teachers then spoke to this student, and told them that she wouldn't get through the course if she didn't do work herself, and that it was them who were dragging her through the course, she said "I have in my all to this course, and I have worked harder than anyone else in this class". Despite this, they still carried on helping her, and neglecting the less capable in our class who actually needed the help, and actually wanted to learn.
I think it's partly the students fault, as they are just giving in to laziness and using the teachers to get their grades. Also the teachers fault for actually doing all the work for students like that, and neglecting the rest of the class, and just letting them get on with whatever it is they are doing, not actually teaching.

Just another scenario I thought I'd comment about which I have come across in my short time studying art, as a lot has been covered in this thread, and I don't feel I have anything to add onto those.

[Bill]

There are some pretty amazing artschools out there as well, and some pretty amazing artists out there teaching.

[jeremygordon89]

I think almost all of the art teachers at my college should not be teaching, or should teach something else. The graphic design professor actually said "You don't really need drawing skills for graphic design." I mean sure, maybe you could do fine in graphic design without drawing, but that sounds very ignorant to say to your students. He also barely even understands how to use the Adobe programs, and yet he teaches it. I'm not even going to get into the other professors, but needless to say my college is very lame (can't wait to transfer to Ringling)

[plundh]

I think almost all of the art teachers at my college should not be teaching, or should teach something else. The graphic design professor actually said "You don't really need drawing skills for graphic design." I mean sure, maybe you could do fine in graphic design without drawing, but that sounds very ignorant to say to your students. He also barely even understands how to use the Adobe programs, and yet he teaches it. I'm not even going to get into the other professors, but needless to say my college is very lame (can't wait to transfer to Ringling)
I can't comment on the graphic design department, but you might get disappointed. We have our share of bad teachers.


Even though a person is a great artist, that's doesn't mean he or she can teach. That said, most teachers I've had aren't even what I would call good artists. The best drawing teacher I've had is Glenn Vilppu, whom I had for a short workshop over spring break. I kept thinking to myself, "why did none of my other teachers teach me these things" (my drawing teacher never uttered the words "line weight", my painting teachers never talked about value). Luckily the library has a great selection of books and dvds that I watch extensively (learned more from one Scott Christensen dvd than an entire semester of painting class). Interestingly the improvement I observe among my fellow students tend to be proportional to how resourceful they are and how much initiative they have outside of class