|
Drawing and the Modern Art debate
At first the drawing discussions seem to digress somewhat from the ongoing modern art thread but apparently familiar arguments continue. The suggestion that drawing education and training might lead to a different appreciation of realism (at the cost of modern art?) does not make very much sense to me. The cynical idea that that schools, teachers, museums, and galleries are not competent and self serving with some successful schemes that have favored a market for Modern Art is not apparent to me in any way. Have "they" stifled any scholarship that would indicate that this situation truly exists? And once again I have to ask: Where is the traditional heart and spirit of the young artist/students that I remember and who, as I recall, would have rebelled at any thought that new, old, better, or other ways of expression were not being pursued? And could it be that a worldwide public having far more access to books, fine prints, museums and galleries and knowledge of art than the handful of citizens alive during the classic art years have been so hoodwinked that they embrace Modern Art as well as realism?
Perhaps an argument would say that early education doesn't arm students with enough basic skills and enough understanding to challenge the art school or college and would be better off if more formal art and drawing course's were part of secondary education. I think the programs might be improved but again do not know how to measure just how broad and extensive art education programs are given nationwide but will say that locally I am impressed with the secondary and high school art. If you have scholastic art programs/competitions in your area it would be helpful to see student efforts at a local level as well as national winners if you find reports of same. (What percent of the world population had any Art Education/exposure in the nineteenth century?)
The question of drawing skills is interesting. My first year at the Cleveland Institute of Art was something of a struggle. I managed good grades but the only course where I felt competitive was life drawing. Otherwise the other students who attended high schools with dynamic art programs did wonderful things in a full range of media, techniques and subjects and I was in awe. With this recall I respond favorably to our local schools because they do a number of things in art in their art education programs. Most importantly, to my mind anyway, they get students excited about art. Having been a late blooming student (and with the help of my mothers prayers to the patron saint of lost causes) I am a firm believer that the biggest role of teachers/educational environment (whatever the subject) in the early developmental years is to excite the student about the subject and help them know and learn more once "turned on".
As much as drawing was and is one of my favorite subjects (I had one full day of life drawing each week for four years and continue to attend a life group locally) I must say that I do not share entirely the posts that suggest that having this skill and understanding will change the direction of art and art appreciation. It may be a large threat to those that worked so hard on specific skills and devastating to those that have such a big problem with modern art but it's influence will remain. It is part of the mix. In short, it would seem that the judgment of good drawing on this thread is that which would support the kind of art that us portrait artist are engaged in and not so much that which might lead to something that differs and shows no facility.
The definition of drawing is not as daunting as earlier attempts to define Art and the good/obvious/obvious is bad confusion but I would like to note that some of the posts suggest a narrow interpretation. I recognize that drawing can be a category of fine art to stand on it's own, a working tool for painters, sculptures, and a training tool for representational artist but it also suffers a narrow definition by many. "Draw with your brush" has been suggested by a lot of artist/teachers and artist in the orient have served as good examples of this advice. Having had the benefit of learning to write with a brush, they draw in a manner that captures realism often better than our outline and shadow approach. I think it also more than a coincidence that many good artist had their training as sign painters. A skill that requires an understanding of proportion, composition, and efficient application (they don't fill in outlines). Is bamboo less realistic when painted in two or three brush strokes than a carefully outlined drawing complete with shadows, reflected light and having some well defined light source?
I don't feel threatened by Modern Art and don't believe portraiture is threatened by it. Most of the art world, magazines, workshops and local art programs support it as strongly as other venues.
It also seems to me that a lot of what is believed and practiced by those sympathetic to Modern Art (Often referred to as "they") in this forum are defined by those that oppose it and do not represent the views of it's practitioners. Do we have considerable evidence that "they" are out to get us? I don't think I have lived with my head in the sand and my streets smarts gained as an urban youth have failed to reveal the hoax.
|