View Single Post
Old 10-26-2002, 05:59 PM   #8
Jim Riley Jim Riley is offline
SOG Member
FT Pro 35 yrs
 
Jim Riley's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 305
Send a message via ICQ to Jim Riley
Lon,

I have no idea how you were led to believe that I've never suspected politics in art shows. Who or how was this implied? Most dissatisfaction with art show judging seems to focus on the "modern" versus "traditional" but I wonder if members think portrait society shows are any less vulnerable to the politics of judging? As unfortunate as this may be, the public usually doesn't care that much and the results don't ordinarily launch or stifle careers.

I also don't know what I may have said to suggest that art education programs broadly are all that they should be. Most of my responses on this Forum have simply questioned a lot of assumptions that, in my mind, reflect the frustration of artists who don't believe their school and style of art is as appreciated as much as they would wish. This often leads to comments suggesting that overt and covert efforts are employed by some vague "establishments" to diminish an art form so very dear to them. Apparently the belief is that the same devious efforts are employed to mislead schools, teachers, museums, galleries, and the public. This often results in "dumbing down" comments.

With due respect for Steven Doherty I would like to see something weightier than his opinion and the grumbling of frustrated students as the basis for making any substantive evaluation of art education/training at college/art school level. I for one am in no position to judge and remain surprised that others on the Forum are so confident in their judgment of academic demise. Are we talking about the quality of art education in its broadest sense or the training of specific and specialized skills? Are we talking about education? Or how to render? Again, as I have mentioned in an earlier thread, I have had the experience regionally to see elementary students work, play, study, experiment with materials and subjects that will give them, in my opinion, a good grounding in the visual arts. And, again, I suspect this will not satisfy those that are convinced that the only "good" course of study is that which will prepare them to be a classical realist painter. How narrow. There is a difference between teaching and indoctrination. I'm happy enough that they have been stimulated and trust they will find their role as artist, designer, or patron and will find one of the many professional schools available for artist today whatever interest.

I previously recommended Robert Henri's book "The Art Spirit" and one Forum response was "Why read his book if I don't like the author's paintings?" He and John Dewey (writer of "Art as Experience") were two important authors offering practical and philosophical insight into the arts. Of Mr. Dewey, the book jacket said: "Art As Experience has grown to be considered internationally as the most distinguished work ever written by an American on the formal structures and characteristic effects of all of the arts: architecture, sculpture, painting, music, and literature".

If these two writers were here today they might be the ones asking just who is too close the forest to see the trees?

What other countries have better programs and how is this evidenced?
__________________
Jim Riley
Lancaster Pa. Portrait Artist