I'll lay a personal view on the line, and expect to get flamed for it.
Modernists single handedly destroyed the credibility of artists, their work was churned out at such a fast rate and at such low technical skill levels that they both became rich from their works and also negatively affected the public's opinion of art as a vocation.
Their lack of technical skill brought art work to a level that is easily replicated by a fucking chimpanzee (literally - I can't remember this chimp's name) and thus took away the stigma of "how the fuck was that even CONCEIVED!?" as lovingly cultivated by the renaissance and baroque artists and their ilk.
The very word "art" in the public domain carries a meme of splattered paint and emotion on canvas as professed by Picasso.
Thats my thought on the matter for better or worse.
I on my behalf think that most high-schools dont see art as something you can actually live of :| Thats why the technical aspects of creating art (as well as the more theoretical aspects) got left behind IMHO...
Originally Posted by Ilaekae
"Art is the physical result of your soul battling with your intellect to the death...with a sharp pencil..."
I hate the art classes they give in high school here ( finland )
Its so stupid that they dont even teach some basic anatomy,no lifedrawing, the subject of paintings being almost totally controlled by teachers + you have to write this "learning diary" thing. lol
I actually failed my high school art class 3 times in a row for this very reason. I refused to write about my feelings for 2 weeks in a diary and then later turn it into some shitty collage for a class project, as was part of our curriculum. Rather, I spent my time looking out of the windows drawing the trees, or practicing portraits and anatomy. I eventually just gave up on the class. Luckily, I was tight with the VP, he let me into art 30 and pass with a mastery score. But I was so resentful about art because of this for the longest time. I did'nt really even "get back into" drawing until about 2 years ago when I started looking at these forums and realized that I DON'T have to be a complete pussy in order to make a living as an artist.
This whole picasso-esque, 'randomness of life' idea conveyed in art nowadays is extremely overplayed is to me seems like a very cheap way of cutting corners in order to produce some work. And it actually angers me to the point where I dread talking to someone was they introduce themselve as an "artist".
This may be a bit off topic.. but it kinds of runs in the veins of Magic Man's post,
I think nowadays, art IS turned out too fast, too crappy. But I don't think it's the teacher's fault, I think is kids today. Mainly kids around my age. 16 - 20 ish, I'm 20. I've noticed from teen forums and such on art, that anything will pass for art given it's context. I've seen a kid literrly just cut up any random things from magazine and collage them together in abouit 10 minutes.. everyone on the forum will say "wow, that's SOOOOO amazing, you're so artistic" It's gotten to the point where I don't think they're saying it to protect people's feelings anymore, but they honestly believe it. So when they see an actual work of art, like one of DSIllustration's pics I posted as a ref, they said "yeah, that's pretty cool." Just because it was'nt about thier teen angst or emotional instabilities....
My bottom line is that nowadays the concept of a piece of art far outweighs the technical executions in the younger generation's minds.
Last edited by Interceptor; October 26th, 2005 at 10:12 AM.
* Help a CA artist! Visit the Constructive Critique section! *
Their lack of technical skill brought art work to a level that is easily replicated by a fucking chimpanzee (literally - I can't remember this chimp's name)
That was Congo the chimp. Half hilarious, half tragic.
In answer to the question though, it's because the art teachers don't know how to do it themselves in most cases. It's not really their fault, they are the product of art schools that didn't teach it, so it'll take a while to get back to teaching it more broadly.
Without wanting to get into a 'modern art sucks' vs 'modern art rules' debate, i will say that there is a place for modern art, and much of it i find fascinating. What i don't like though, is that teaching has changed into a way that says "you can do whatever you like with art", but then only gives you the freedom to do what the teacher likes (which tends to be modern) and won't provide solid grounding.
I stand by magicman on that one. Those modernist jaggoffs have pretty much fisted traditional art's credibility. In my past 12 years of education, ive had at least one art class a year. For the first time ever, this year I've actually got a real art teacher. Not some ornery old grandma trying to earn some extra retirement dough, we're talking an honest to god artist. Somedays, she'll just tell us to go outside and sketch what we feel. Other days, she'll set us infront of, say, a decrepit old bicycle and tell us to do an ink wash of anything other than the bike. Point being, she knows art and she wants us to try and figure out our own meaning of art. Best part? Shes not a teacher. Our real teacher got knocked up, so the head of our art department (a friend of hers) asked her to come in. I think when you're educated to be an art teacher for anyplace other than art school, you ruin it.
Bottom line is that it comes down to money - and this is the gospel truth with both Highschool and Junior Colleges - it has nothing to do with modernists or artistic credibility or anything like that.
Highschools get money when their sports stars are accepted by junior colleges, and the junior colleges get money when they move on to whatever college they finally end up attending.
They don't for the arts or music. It's really as simple as that.
Besides, why would they go and get excited about some damn fairy who wants to go and *draw* when they've Wolf Hunter on the football team?
I mean, c'mon.
In Australia, the same feeling of art being a throw away class is also pretty evident - and the school gets jack shit for having star athletes...so I don't see any correlation here whatsoever.
General poor understanding of the art discipline + this throw-away meme propogated by teachers who know fuck all and who ARE generally losers bring down the credibility of art as a subject to be taken seriously.
Even though I somewhat personally agree with what MagicMan stated, Oregano is on the ball here.
My school barely had money for paper. We had to make use of what amounted to toilet paper for most of our projects. That being said, if the school board couldn't see it in their hearts or wallets to buy paper, there is just no way in hell they'd hire a model.
I also don't think students at that time are ready for anatomy. My classes back then rarely got past shading.
And just to relay a personal story here. Those of us in art class weren't even allowed to have a bakesale to raise money for supplies even though every other after-school program allowed it. I guess it was a technicallity...we were an actual during-school class and thus all funds were regulated by the school board. it really sucked.
It's because art class is a joke in high school. Kids take it to goof around. You guys say, "High school art class should be for kids that take art seriously!" Well, unless you take A.P. Art, then its not going to happen. Just like how P.E. isn't for kids that want to professional athletes. High School is to teach kids how to be more literate. You're not supposed to learn anything or to be educated. That is what college is for.
Why does High School treat people that want to take art classes worse then people that wanna join the school marching band?
It's like all these jock sniffers and pseudo intellectuals are on the board of education and deemed art classes as an unworthy pursuit?
And here we are in the 21st century with computer games and movies making multi-billion dollar gross.....who are these idiots that make these decisions in the public school system?
I recall a lot of apathy in high school towards art and very little structure on teaching it.......it just felt like it was a place to put all the misfits in and be baby sitted for an hour or so.
And at that time I realize I wanted structure.
What could be more simple and more structural then offering Life Drawing in High School? Why do you think it was not taught?
As far as the genitals and nipples go, you could wear a leotard and teach quicksketch.
Basically, this is my impression of public schools in California....in California!.....gawd, you'd think we'd be more liberal.
Why should there be life drawing classes in school?
High school and comparable schools are not there to push you in one direction (in most countires). It's a basic educational programm and you can´t cover everything in these years. Just having life drawing classes for the few who want them? The answer is probably: Go out and take life drawing classes after school if you want. High school is a mix of trying to teach as much as you can and at the same time teaching everyone and leaving noone behind. And it doesn't help that most young people have enoug other problems.
a lot of highschools just dont have that authority. a lot of the art teachers recognize life drawing as a key in building skill in art and actually a few schools in my area have life drawing programs in their schools. Of course maybe 2 or 3 out of however many are in ontario and who knows how good each one is, ive only heard of these schools.
my art school teacher did their best to include some life drawing. We had a few weeks where students would pose in their clothes and we would draw the figure with drapery. better than nothing
I agree though the school system is very conservative when it comes to allowing nude models pose for students.
I guess where it works out best is schools that specialize in art where most of the students want to life draw and probably already have in their spare time so it would be considered normal and not riskae.
Principals screen books that are ordered through the schools art department and if they dont agree it doesnt go through.
Too bad eh! Maybe in the future it will get better but all I can say is im glad im in college now.
It comes down if you realy want it spend some extra money and find a course near you and take it if its really that important because the schools that teach GEN Ed can only do so much.
I figure I'll have a go at this while I'm half asleep, exhausted and about to go to bed (after all the walking I've done today my legs will not be on speaking terms with me tomorrow).
My own personal view seems to be similar to XXXJanitorman's in that a large part of the blame can be attributed to the students that take the class. Looking back on my own time in high school I can only really think of a handful of people who where taking the art class who actually planned to make some use of it in the future. Most of the people seemed to be there because, hey, its that class where you get to sit down and chat to people for an hour and a half while doodling pictures.
Consequently a lot of the information being handed out was very generalised and not very informative. I don't remember learning anything about the basic ideas of composition until I left high school to go to university. In fact, I seem to remember perspective being something we did for all of one day in any serious way. This had a pretty bad impact on me at the time because I didn't really realise these things until a long time after, a lot of which is due to sites like this were I got more exposure to what proffesionals were doing (man, I wish this place had existed when I was in high school, I would have started hating my own stuff way, way sooner ).
Actually, I remember my aunt telling how she once did model for life drawing at a high school and how it was one of the worst experiences in her life due to the level of immaturity of the students. Small country towns are great.
Like Magic Man I also went to a school where sports weren't a big money or prestige earner so I don't see that working, I think its just viewed with an apathy because they can't afford to bring it up to the level demanded/needed by the people who take it seriously, especially when they can go get better, dedicated education for it when they leave.
I do also agree with Magic Man and Interceptor on the points they made on the artwork being accepted in the classes (Interceptor's story about the cuttings sounded very familiar) but I think that's just a sympton of the disease, not the disease itself.
This is going to make absolutely no sense to me tomorrow, I apologise to all the people who are confused right now.
Policies vary on how to respond in the uncommon event that a male model has an involuntary erection while posing. Some take a matter-of-fact attitude toward such a situation and expect the students and the model to continue regardless (drawing the figure as he appears), whereas others feel this pushes the limit of propriety into erotic art and/or a sexual situation, and may interrupt the session.