SPONSORED ADVERT

Friday, June 22, 2012

The People’s Artist


By Jigna Padhiar
Photography: Courtesy Dr. Sudhir Patwardhan


Internationally renowned artist Sudhir Patwardhan’s name is synonymous with art inspired by the city. Here, the radiologist turned artist, inspires in his thoughts and views.

A critic’s view way back in the early 1990’s reads, “In any discussion of contemporary Indian art the significant contribution of Sudhir Patwardhan is undeniable. He belongs to the openly eclectic generation of artists born in the 40's whose socio-political commitments seem to have been best realized in their work through figuration.”

A practicing radiologist for three decades, self-taught artist, Dr. Sudhir Patwardhan, held his first exhibition in 1979. He is most known for his cityscapes inspired from Mumbai and for his candid portrayal of the common man. His keen observations of the facets of daily life in the city form the crux of his work.

.

Palpability engages the viewer with his canvases as if in a conversational environment, speaking of common happenings; averring to their deeper underlying ethos. His visuals engage and impact, leaving an indelible impression long after one has moved away from them. Such is the depth of his passion.

.

Here, Dr. Sudhir Patwardhan shares his views with self-taught aspirants of fine art and hobbyists, who would like to step into the professional arena…
   
1. Having pursued studies in Radiology, what prompted you to pursue art practice.

Art was a passion since college days and I pursued it along with my medical studies and practice. Never felt that the two were not compatible; though it did take some management of time and discipline.

.

2. Does one need to be a born artist or can skill be acquired with practice, if one does not attend an art college?

One may have some genetic traits that would help in certain kinds of work, some aptitude. But it is impossible to know what traits will be useful for the particular kind of work that one may pursue. So it is best to concentrate on training oneself for the job! An art college is one such useful place, where one would learn the use of different media and techniques in a systematic way. All these aspects, a self-taught artist has to search for, on his or her own. An advantage is that he need not spend time and energy learning things he does not need. But there is much to learn outside of art colleges too; and much that most art colleges will not teach you.

.

3. Are there basics or skills that you think you might have learnt better had you attended an art college?

Yes, there are. Painting techniques, for example... One has tried to learn them from different sources like other artists, evening classes at art schools, books, and experimenting by oneself. (One is never entirely 'self-taught'.) One problem of learning these techniques at an art college is that they are usually transmitted as part of an 'academic' style, which then becomes difficult to shed. So I am happy the way I did my training - outside ‘Art College’.

.

4. Please share 2 do’s and 2 don’ts with a self-taught artist aspiring to become professionally recognized.

I personally consider it presumptuous to advise a young aspirant. The world is a vast ocean of knowledge. There is so much to garner from. I really don’t think I should be advising anyone. To each his own.

.

112 comments :

  1. oh wow! i would love to meet him some day! he's inspirational

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Coral Crue,
      Congratulations! You have been selected as one of the lucky winners for commenting on this topic.
      To enable us to send you your e-coupon, kindly respond to info(at)indiaartndesign(dot)com with your email orsimply sign up for our comprehensive weekly newsletter on www.indiaartndesign.com. Optionally, you can follow the link below https://app.expressemailmarketing.com/survey.aspx?SFID=131332
      Please also feel free to inform your friends & colleagues to subscribe too. This weekly Newsletter will keep you posted on the activities, interactive events and updates of India Art n Designezine.
      What’s more this Newsletter is absolutely Free.
      Also, if you are an artist, architect or designer with an eye for the 'exceptional', IAnD would love to feature your work. Pl feel free to contact us...

      Regards,
      Team IAnD

      Delete
  2. It leaves the naturally talented at the top of the process because academic qualifications diminish with time while talent rises to the top.
    Posted by Peter Filzmaier on Linkedin Group: True Artist: living the art in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  3. One thing does not eliminate the other. If you are a very talented person, the education will provide you with the tools and skills to so you can use your talent to a full extent. For example, a singer may be naturally talented, but he/she will still educate their voice in order to reach their full potential, the same goes for every kind of natural ability.
    Posted by Maria Leupelt on Linkedin Group: IDC in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is two sides to every coin. There are great artist like Dr. Patwardhan that teach themselves. Many others that are more primitive but have a thing that they stick with, work hard at and obtain an individual style. There are many collectors that seek out just that sort of outsider art. There are many trained artist who seek to maintain a more primitive style as well. There are also those I find mostly doing abstracts that think a few swirls of paint makes them an artist that people should take seriously just because they call it art. There is nothing unique about their work and they don't care to strive for greatness but just fill canvas after canvas in out of the tube color of every variety to match someone's couch, or because they have seen abstract art and think hey, I could do that. It becomes tedious to see image after image with no effort or thought other than I'll just spread this stuff on here and sell it to someone who really knows nothing about art but would love a cheap thing to call art for their home. I learned a lot in schools but much more out in the world working as an artist in different capacities. I learned more about tool usage through jobs like landscaping and home repairs than I did in school. I learned more about painting working as a scenic artist than in school, but i got some great foundations in school and had great teachers. I guess what I'm trying to say is it is all about the effort whether you have schooling or not. I know folks who have masters degrees that do uninspired art. I've known people who couldn't read or write correctly that could blow me away with their art. I recently ran across an art collection a friend of mine acquired from an outsider artist family after the man passed away. The guy made his work, worked hard at it and created a literal ton of it. Never considered himself an artist and never showed his work. His family came to take care of his final affairs and found a big garage with giant panels of art stacked ten deep filling the large garage. Although the work was executed in a primitive manner, his sense of design and color was incredible. I felt privileged to be one of the few people who had ever viewed this body of work. Just some thoughts, no big revelations here but just a little of my experience. There are the artist who work I look at and think really? But then someone comes behind or before me and says how wonderful it is.
    Posted by Janiece Senn on Linkedin Group: fine art professionals & collectors in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think academic qualification must give confidence to an artist and probably impresses other people and helps sales. However many top selling artists such as the late Francis Bacon from the UK never when to art school.
    Posted by Elinor Fletcher on Linkedin Group: Landscape Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  6. As someone who has been faculty in an art school, I can tell you why artists benefit. By the way, I think Dr. Patwardhan's work is highly engaging and anyone, building a career studying subtle shapes, shadows and tonalities on X-ray film has already learned key lessons in observation that an art school would engender. Artists participate in art school to be in a community of other artists. Every artist learns from others, especially when they're struggling to find answers at your side. You learn from both neophytes and experienced instructors who can expose you to ideas that might not occur in your own exploration for many years. You learn to be honest about your own work as you gently criticize the work of others and hear what they say about what you've done. Finally, if you go far enough, you get an academic qualification that gives you license to inspire and help younger artists in an academic environment. Teaching in an art school is constant inspiration for your own work. That's why new artists go to art school. That's why experienced artists teach in art school.
    Posted by Alan Rosas on Linkedin Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Talent is not relevant to an artist who is trying to make work that adds to the contemporary art dialogue. Neither is formal art education, but many of those uneducated seem unaware of the artists mission, to add to the contemporary art dialogue. In other words what is the artist doing for art? If they are just doing it for them selves the rest of us don't really need to know about it.
    Posted by Bill Vielehr on Linkedin Group: fine art professionals & collectors in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I consider those who disparage self-taught artists as "Shrink's Couch" critics. Have you ever had a conversation with someone who sees purely through the eyes of his or her psychiatrist? That's what talking to a "mainstream academic" art critic is like. Nothing is from the heart! Whether an artist has natural talent or passion means nothing to them.
    My opinion is that creating true art is like praying, or making love. It must come from the heart in order to communicate to the heart. Everything else is decoration.
    Posted by Strodney Lamkey on Linkedin Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I understand where you are coming from and will attempt to address. I believe I am naturally talented AND have a BFA, MA and an MFA in art. My answer? You WILL learn something. Drawing the figure is a good example. Portraits are as well, which is my forté. I learned NOT how to draw, as I already knew how to do this from my drawing "hobby" per se (I've drawn since I could hold a crayon), but I didn't know how to "SEE". That is what I learned. I also learned all about anatomy in my figure drawing courses. It is important to study the bones, tendons and underlying structure in order to effectively draw the figure. Not only is it important to take courses, it is important to teach courses. I am also a professor. Professors do what they say. It is mandatory at the collegiate level.
    Posted by Catherine Case on Linkedin Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Talent means you have an ability to excel in some creative field which gives people the idea that they are special. Having the ability to excel and actually excelling at it are two different things. Academic qualification gives the artist an education in art, allows the artist to develop the skills needed to paint and draw proficiently and creates the opportunity for an artist to gain skill in various media. A person can choose to go to art school/college or not and still gain confidence through self study and the discipline of drawing.
    Posted by Christine Cooper on Linkedin Group: Landscape Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Though I began to paint in 1996 after taking a drawing class & a few oil painting lessons, most of what I have learned is from studying other artists, reading books & visiting galleries & museums & attending workshops ....painting nearly every day is the best practice, so I am not sure that art school is the only way...I am just a late bloomer!
    Posted by Linda Holmes on Linkedin Group: Landscape Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hmm. The great debate / divide. Academic training versus studio training. Again. I believe that one needs both. One can't learn / improve without hands-on training and experience in a studio environment.
    However, I'm often astonished at how ignorant many (perhaps most) artists are of their forebears in art, and in a way that hinders their work and growth. In my life I've seen the pendulum swing from one extreme to another. Artists graduate from art school with mostly words stuffed in their brains and artists who have no knowledge at all of the immediately preceding generations.
    Outside the art school, with self-taught artists, it's up to the individual. How much balance do you put in your own education / training? A harsh but telling test is, "Do you read books?" I don't mean a "book" like, "Convincing Skies with Acrylic Pastel Wands". I mean maybe Simon Schama's book on Rembrandt. Do you, do you read?
    Posted by Peter McReynolds on Linkedin Group: Landscape Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for your feedback, Peter. Also a good one is that from David Silvester on Francis Bacon.
    Anyway the way is simple: to start spontaneous, than achieve knowledges, than turn back spontaneous.
    Achieving knowledges is never ending and a good teacher could just show some shortcuts. Usually academic artists have had more accesses to the Matter during their study period. How and whear did they spend their capabilities belongs to individuals
    Posted by sergej glinkov on Linkedin Group: Landscape Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Academic qualifications bear no relationship whatsoever to those lucky people that are naturally talented. All these gifted people need to do to complete their "creative degrees" so to speak, is to learn how to use their tools of trade (one does not need academic qualifications for that) and they are off and running. Us less fortunate mortals can only stand back, admire their progress, encourage them and try to learn to do what they do with seemingly little or no effort. Hopefully their creative vision and innovative approach is not dashed or impeded by a misplaced art teacher or critic trying to impose their personal opinions or rules onto them instead of offering technical assistance and guidance only. A dedicated, imaginative and naturally gifted artists work will always surpass that of an academically trained one. If you think this is not a fact, you should not be involved in the world of art.
    Posted by Tony Barber on Linkedin Group: ART Professionals Worldwide in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Peter F, First off you assume that naturally talented artist don't chose to also become educated. Given an opportunity for an education why shouldn't (or wouldn't) some one want to do that? You also assume of course that an academically trained artist doesn't improve artistically as they grow older too. It seems that you assume that an academically trained artist doesn't try to continue their education and continue to grow both artistically, and technically, as well as increase their knowledge (education). Of course that isn't necessarily true. It happens, but it isn't a given fact.

    I believe you don't have to be formally educated to be a good artist. I also believe that getting an education doesn't automatically make someone a good artist either. I've also seen "educated" artists that lack any talent and are just so full of themselves that they use artist's statements to justify bad art. But having a BFA or MFA doesn't make one a bad artist either.

    OK, so back to the original question. There is an assumption made that if someone has taken the time to be formally trained in the arts that they have been exposed to a greater variety of techniques and problem solving scenarios that they have learned from. A self taught artist might not have undergone a similar process of self education.

    I think much of this depends on what field you're talking about? If you're talking about something like design work, then certainly going to school helps educate one on at least the techniques of how to do layout, talk with a print company, media outlet, how to develop a portfolio to show potential clients, etc. If you're talking about teaching of course you need the credentials to teach in an academic institution. But if you're talking about walking into an art gallery to get your work represented by them, raw talent and lots of work is usually enough. There are things about getting a formal education that can help with learning how to approach a gallery, and what kind of things to have in a portfolio, and how to develop a substantial body of work so one can approach a gallery in the first place. Sure, one can learn that kind of thing without going to school.

    There are many "untrained" artist that are successful doing what they want to do. So a BFA or MFA isn't essential to be successful, but havng a degree doesn't guarantee success either
    Posted by Kim Lindaberry on Linkedin Group: True Artist: living the art in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kim, let me clarify. I am not demeaning academic qualifications. I do beleive, as an artist progresses raw talent superseeds academia because the academic envelope imposes too many restraints and safety nets for the full potential to reveal itself. Regardles of the academic back ground the truly inspired artist sheds the academic restraints and becomes self taught.
    Posted by Peter Filzmaier on Linkedin Group: True Artist: living the art in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hello, My name is Adel, I’ m living in Oradea. I like your works. I am a nurse and painter. I followed a school of painting for three years, without university courses. I agree with you that are required introductory courses in art, but talent and hard work are key to success. Self-taught activity is fundamental.
    Posted by adel niculae on Linkedin Group: Paintings in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I took every workshop that came into the area, and traveled to other states and towns for my education in clay. I had a burning desire to sculpt. However I also had a husband that was in college and two children. For twelve years I studied. I spent years doing art fairs and now I teach sculpture. I am glad I had this opportunity to meet some wonderful instructors and feel that I had a much broader education. However, I also have found the degree helps in many ways.
    Posted by Eloise Ritt on Linkedin Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Art is, at least in my eyes and mind, is a means or medium of self-expression. Why do we have to analyze the end product? We paint because we feel something that is expressed in images and colors. To respond to Bill V's question: why do I, as an artist or as a person who enjoys taking brush in hand and the creative process, have to do something *for* art?
    Posted by Eleanor Tylbor on Linkedin Group: fine art professionals & collectors in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Self taught artists have a difficult time working within academic restraints. They create the vision and have the strength to perservere because they don't have academia to fall back on.
    Posted by Peter Filzmaier on Linkedin Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I suppose an academic can explain himself better than an uneducated artist, so often the artist should just keep quiet and let his art speak for itself.

    All artists are proficient at their work, they concentrate their all on getting the effect they want, if that isn't proficiency, whether it produces master pieces or not, then I don't know what is.
    Posted by Ann Waddicor on Linkedin in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Talent--a gift that we don't always value but talk about a great deal. Talent can make it (art making) easier but without the passion and commitment talent is not very much. Without developing a vocabulary and a voice, who cares if you can draw or sculpt. As an artist I want to be able to make more stuff--and be ready to pounce when something starts to happen that is good. Art making feeds upon itself, suggests new ideas, and new approaches. I want to be able to make more stand out pieces so commitment to keep working is really important to me. And that can be the value of education--the development of one's talent, the development of the critical eye, and the ability to talk about what moves me to fellow artists and to potential collectors.
    Is education critically important? Probably not but it worked for me.
    Posted by Jo-Ann Brody on Linkedin Group: fine art professionals & collectors in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think referring to some people as "naturally talented" digs a not very desirable hole. It divides us into those who have natural talent and those who do not which is a not very productive way to look at it.

    A lot of people stay away from pursuing art because they think, have been convinced by someone else, that they don't have natural talent. On the contrary those artists who have had the most success as artists seem to build on a positive early experience with art, and are then able to focus with intensity and passion on their art, discover ways of expressing themselves through their own voice and style.

    Art is not like athletics where some seem to have more natural physical endowments than others which enables them to be better athletes. There are no particular artistic attributes like that, art is open to all, and how we develop our abilities is mostly about attitude and perseverance. Skills are learned and nurtured and blossom with attention.

    Moreover getting academic training can help in this process as it offers experiences that help one move along the trail faster to becoming a productive and creative artist, experiences they might not have if staying on the path of being "self taught".

    ReplyDelete
  24. one would hope that BFA programs would weed out the untalented and disallowed them from continuing on to a carreer, (much as a guild system would) but it seems college is a business and "Art" as a subject is hard to quantify, codefy, or standardize qualitatively. Many lost and untalented students (but well monied) are allowed to BS their way along all the way into PHD's if they wish...(then to become proffesseurs, critics, museum curators and cultural directors for the next generation) one doesn't need talent in art necessarily but in conceptualizing, philosophizing, writing, sophistry

    The reality of recent art history indicates that often the acedemic salon is wrong ---its the rebel, the outsider, the uneducated and rejected one who becomes the Van Gogh or Picasso and leads art history, so who is to know what art is or will be.

    luckily medical and engineering programs don't operate this way even though they to are schools that are businesses also, the bridges stay up, the heart transplant works etc.

    I am self taught as a sculptor, I have worked over 35 years supporting myself solely by sales of my art. I went to college and had to do battle with proffs who knew nothing and were often jealous/ fearful jeering at my natural talent. everything of value I learned was from self study, study of museum works, or hanging out with artists I respected.

    Yet it was my college record that "Qualified" me to begin my career as an
    artist-in-residence....without college "training" in my record I would have been cut off from opportunity, I would likely still be a carpenter who does art on the side.

    In the end, its what you can do that counts, if you can make beauty that moves people, and they buy it from you, you are an artist. No matter what papers you buy from a college for $100,000. and up....that will not garrantee you can make beautiful objects that have a physical,spiritual,emotional presence that are valued as art. There are so many professeurs, "doctors of art" who are failed artists, and can't give their art away.

    What college can do is expose you to good technique, ceramic that don't explode, paint that doesn't curl up and fall off the canvas. you can learn tricks of trade, classical method. If you are lucky you can meet a few true artists in faculty and student peers. and you have time and space to study, to try out tools and materials and groups to discuss what art is, whats good, whats BS,. College is an opportunity to learn but not the only way to learn.
    Posted by bill hopen on Group: True Artist: living the art in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Really Jo-Ann - you've hit the nail on the head: who cares if I draw or sculpt (or paint in my case). It has to please me as the creator. There are times when I'm in the creative process when things "click" and my soul/spirit soars. Then there are other not-so-great occasions when the images somehow are not "talking" to me. These are the occasions when white paint becomes my friend ;-) Once I sign my signature at the bottom of the canvas, I can elaborate for hours to anyone who will listen as to the motivation and choice of colors for its creation.
    Posted by Eleanor Tylbor on Linkedin Group: fine art professionals & collectors in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think that any artist only produces the hum-dinger of a piece occasionally, its not something that can be captured at random, and yet it can come spontaneously, even the best famous artists would probably agree that not all they produce is good. When it is, one knows it. And then the world recognises its quality.

    In poetry it is more difficult to define, as in music, there are so many other elements, but in something tangible, we can use all our senses to determine its worth. Schooling helps some, and not others, if only to tell them what not to do. Picasso wasn't sent to an Art College, because, as his father said, he wanted to become an artist.

    It all depends....... :)
    Posted by Ann Waddicor on Linkedin Group: fine art professionals & collectors in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I like this discussion. I am self taught for the most part. I have taken a few workshops and have taught a number of workshops. I always tell students that I can teach them technique, I can teach them about value, color, composition, but "art" is individual, personal, comes from their entire life experience. I have this saying posted on my website, "when the student is ready, the teacher appears". I think proficiency comes when learning meets the artists personal expression, then art is produced. It seems to me, proficiency, "expert in an art skill", is a natural bi product of the combination of the two.
    By the way, Sudhir, I like your work very much. I admire your proficiency!
    Posted by Susan Ketcham on Linkedin Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hello Dr. Sudhir, Academic qualification is equated with proficiency, just as in medicine or any field where proficiency is required. Would you want a wannabe doctor with No academic training performing procedures on your body ? Natural talent is the begining,it makes it easier, but you still need to do the homework, research, study and Practice ,Practice like a musician, athlete or a dentist....anything, if you want to be top dog. Academic study is not necessary but certainly does help Structure a potential artist to be. Artists, like the french Realists were academically trained, but there came a time in their lives and work ,where they rejected the academic ideas, to break the Rules and get out of the box if you will.One must know the rules well in art before attempting to break them. Picasso is another good example, he could draw bette that his artist father and at an early age and look what he did after he liberated his creativity.There have been Numerous Self-taught artists in the history of art, that poduced vey high quality art work. The habit does not make the monk.I think its a combination of many factors that go into the making of an artist, a lot depends on the direction the artist's chooses, Training in any area certainly helps he who persues, specially in the arts.
    Posted by Gabriel Sencial on Linkedin Group: Art Lovers in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  29. On the academic issue: I wish I could have had "higher" instruction in oil painting techniques, figure study, perspective, etc. that I'm sure is offered to students in some of the better art schools around the country; but I had to settle on small work shops here and there whenever I could find the time during my Navy career. I see the work that is out there (through International Art Magazine, etc) and read about their academic qualifications....and you know what?.....the majority of their art is outstanding. I take the time to read how they prepare for a painting, the materials they use, their setup...all of it, and I'm getting a second-hand art course just by reading and experimenting with their techniques. I can see improvement in my paintings over the past few years by doing this.
    Posted by Curtis Dall on Linkedin Group: Landscape Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  30. From my experiences, this, like many other specialised areas creates an assumed elite class. That elite then spends the majority of it's time either trying to justify its exclusivity or keeping others out of the club. Much like the gallery scene, it's not about talent but about which ass you kiss and how much you tell people of your talent.

    I've rarely met a phd that had common sense, humility, or a clear understanding of what it meant to just live a daily life. Likewise an M(*)A. And they thoroughly enjoyed looking down on the people who labored to live.

    Granted the other end of the spectrum is equally as bad. But I've found it far easier to have dinner in the home of a mechanic or farmer than at the table of a doctor or professor. And part of me finds this very sad.

    This is my own personal observation and experience, and, obviously results vary.

    I suspect the net will begin to gray these barriers and eventually dissolve them. So new more efficient forms of elitism will be created. Humans will always find a reason to exclude others and puff up their chests in an effort to explain to you exactly how wonderful they are.
    Posted by Ash Retech on Linkedin Group: True Artist: living the art in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  31. OK Peter, now I understand where you were coming from. I agree, any good artist must learn how to learn independent of any formal training . . . And thank for having a look at my work. I'm glad you liked it. I also went to your website and looked around and I thoroughly enjoyed your paintings.
    Posted by Kim Lindaberry on Linkedin Group: True Artist: living the art in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I like what Alan has said about the benefits of an art school education. I am mostly a self-taught artist. Books and videos have been helpful to me in my growth and know how, but I have sorely missed out on any kind of professional know how and refinement. I feel like somwhat of a wild tare in the professional world. And I have missed out on the benefits of going to school with other artists. The short amount of time that I was able to go to art school was one of the most enriching and wonderful and growth periods of my life and I surely needed more of that.
    Posted by Kathy Bergen on Linkedin Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think that mainstream academics often frown on autodidactic talented artists because of their own insecurity...not to say and perhaps even more so inhibitive human jealousy. I've seen so many of these self-taught artists over the last 40 years who could have made it internationally but because of a lack of "academic papers" are and have been ignored by most galleries and/or serious art dealers not to talk about the "art industry" per se. But I will lift my hat any day to those self-taught artists who have persisted and proved the academics wrong in their own twisted state-of-mind.
    Posted by Michel Reno on Linkedin Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Academic qualifications are very useful for discipling the mind in a certain direction, studying theory to inform one's practice etc. I have just completed a bachelor's degree in visual arts, after being self taught and freelance all my life. I learnt heaps about other aspects of my practice - the whole experience was exhilerating and stimulating. My husband (background in graphic art) studied along side of me on the same degree and we had an absolute ball. It's not for everyone of course but I would consider those years as one of the highlights of my life.
    Posted by Susannah MacDonald on Linkedin Group: Paintings in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I attended a fine arts college for 1 year - travelled 100 miles a day to attend. I had three outstanding professors, art history, color theory and life drawing. The best of the best was dismissed for imposing too great a work load on the students. I couldn't stand the elitist politics. Instead of returning the next year I studied on my own in a forty dollar a month shack spending most of my time painting outdoors and reading books. I respect formal education and i think it does much good for many people. I do beleive art is for every one. I don't like institutions or groups who want to make it an exclusive domain, thats one reason i like the internet. its open to everyone. I've shown my work with some of the best and some with lesser skill with a lot of heart and soul. The most inspiring work is the work of children yet untouched by the influences of exclusivity.
    Posted by Peter Filzmaier on Linkedin Group: True Artist: living the art in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I just have two people to use as examples of why academic qualifications are absolutely not necessary. Picasso (went to art school for six months and dropped out, since he could paint and draw better than anyone there, including the teachers)! By 15 he was painting extraordinarily accomplished paintings that were often huge! And Francis Bacon, who never studied art at all and who was one of the greatest painters of the second half of the twentieth century. Indeed even in the 19th century many of the greatest painters studied privately or dropped out of school entirely. Van Gogh and Gaugin come to mind immediately. In fact, one might well say that true creative genius finds art school to be either unnecessary, or they abandon it long before they complete their studies. But as one friend who's an art teacher said to me, Picasso wouldn't be allowed to be an art teacher here, because he wouldn't have a four-year teaching degree!
    It's the same with computer people. The greatest creative geniuses (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc. were drop-outs from university!) In fact, most of the greatest entrepenuers or founders of great companies, were not holders of academic qualifications at all, yet the people they employ were required to have what they themselves showed wasn't necessary - an academic piece of paper!
    Posted by Kevin Geary on Linkedin Group: fine art professionals & collectors in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  37. In my view academic qualification has to do with skill...proficiency may be had by both the schooled and the naturals.
    Posted by Joaquin Carter on Linkedin Group: Paintings in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Completing a BFA or MFA is no indication of even having drawing skills. It must mean you completed your course work. Colleges are in the business of collecting tuition. They can't MAKE someone an artist.
    Posted by Laurel Sternberg on linkedin Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Laurel: how true! I have met many people with BFAs and MFAs, and some of them, purely because of their degrees, teach art at the high school level without having learned to draw or paint!
    Posted by Strodney Lamkey on linkedin Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Serious artists that are natural creators, often follow the path of higher artistic education because they desire to be better at what they love to do... and must do. If they are serious they will find themselves in a good art school. They will soak up knowledge and their work will be better then they could ever do on their own.

    Talent is not as natural as one may think, it is born in passion, love, empathy and the sheer energy to work 9 out of 10 people into the ground when it come to their art. We all follow our passion but the best never stop expanding their skills.
    Posted by Barry Scharf on Linkedin Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I disagree and agree with some of this. Wow... talk about insecurity. You all are ferocious toward academia. What the heck is wrong with it? And Art critics should not be included with artists, I think. I am one of those naturally talented artist, from early on. It was clear what I would be doing the rest of my life.
    When it came to higher education, I did not come from a family that had the money to send me to Art school so I did it myself thru loans, scholarship, work grants, after school jobs. I sacrificed everything to get thru school. It was important to me. The benefit was the training. You learn so much in school, especially about who you are as an artists. Or at least I did. There are pros and cons to any educational system, art school included but how you develop in mainly on your shoulders. Yes, there are some people that never make it to art or thru art school. They are just as talented but most of them, whom I've known did not have as much self discipline. That is not necessarily a bad thing but when we are young we need to develop self discipline. This is how we learn to navigate thru anything we decide to do. If we don't learn to bend, to see other sides of things, we don't grow as artists. There is a strong difference between someone who has gone thru training and one who hasn't. You can see it in the work. There are some exceptions, of course but often that is true. I think being immersed in an Art environment, academically is paramount as to the outcome of your art. Especially when you are young. I advise all parents, whom I have talked to that have a gifted child, to give them the education they deserve. So, I disagree. I think we need to be with others to learn. You can do that by yourself, of course, but it isn't the same. It is how we discern who we are. And if you didn't make it thru school, there are always workshops etc. if you get antsy in a workshop then that says something about that person too. It's a great way to find out what your strengths and weakeness is. Sometimes one doesn't like to see it but that is a good thing because you can always improve. I also think if you do go thru school and you commit your life to Art you are working thru your heart. You made that commitment years ago. Art comes from the heart no matter where you come from academia or not. It is part of your very being. It's all worth it. Don't you think? Why trash the artists that made the commitment to get an education? It's what they decided to do for themselves. Art critics or curators are going to naturally look at them first because of the experience. It is that way in all professions.
    Posted by Peggy Nichols on linkedin Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Formal education taught me to "see" vs. drawing icons of imagery.
    Posted by Catherine Case on Linkedin Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  43. to all , an art education helps U with the technical part of the painting/artist .it gives U a head start because U can express Urself , without struggle . as for the artistic side it gives U insight what + why U paint . but all of this + most of all , it learns U to appreciate Ur talent . this all does not make U a better artist . it shows U how to use Ur talent . + un untrained artist can be a much more interesting artist , look at the ''Brute''-artists + numerous other great artists -mtn
    for the rest paint , paint + enjoy ; do not worry about perspective . it is in the eye of the beholder .
    Posted by Martyn Van der Jagt on Linkedin Group: Landscape Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Been reading some other comments on this subject. I'm glad a few are expressing their thoughts concerning this issue/debate. Just got back from my studio where I prepared a few canvases for future paintings (currently working on African wildlife series painting from photographs taken by a friend just back from Africa). I really have to side with Peter McReynolds regarding reading. I have researched as much as I can about a few of the old "masters" and their techniques. I try to copy as much as I can from the brush strokes and laying in of the paint as did by Vincent Van Gogh in a lot of my paintings. Quoting from Pablo Piccaso "Bad artists copy; good artists steal". That's not saying that I steal a lot...just a little bit!
    Posted by Curtis Dall on Linkedin Group: Landscape Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Courses challenge your assumptions and force you to try techniques or styles you might not have tried on your own. Self-critique only goes so far.
    Posted by Kirsten Gilmore on Linkedin Group: Paintings in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  46. I agree that it takes a certain amount of discipline to go through school and study the arts. I also agree that getting an art education gives you a different perspective. That still does not make you an artist and it isn't true that people without an art education aren't disciplined. Those who have an art education have a certain advantage in that they are taught how the tools of the trade are used, the principles of light and shadow and color theory etc. That isn't to say that a self taught artist can't pick up a book or a DVD (now a day) and learn the same things. I also don't think it's fair that art Critics or curators look at an artist that has gone to school first, before a self taught artist. And if it is that way in all professions (which it is) that I also find not to be fair. You can take someone with an art education and throw them into the world and all you have is someone with an education, the rest is up to them, whether they can sell themselves or whether they can actually produce works that you would consider art and not just a blank canvas with one color on it. Same is in the work force, you get out of school and you still have to sell yourself, once you have sold yourself you still need to be trained to do that specific job and be disciplined to keep doing it.

    It is no different for the self taught artist; they just happen to have a raw talent and with time, practice and study of books and others art they too can have the ability to be considered an artist. There is a lot to overcome as a self taught artist, you don't have someone telling you what to do and you have to search and research. This does not make them any more or less desirable or less able to produce art than one who has gone to school.

    That is just my two cents and my opinion of course.
    Posted by Mary Haertel on linkedin Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Peggy I agree with each to their own path. Its unfortunate, if as you say the critics and curators allow credentials to determine the merrit of the work.
    Posted by Peter Filzmaier on linkedin Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  48. This whole thread is purely academic in its fundamental nature - academics are intellectually inclined to question the nature of everything, including the notions surrounding the academics as viewed by both the uninitiated and the initiated; the only reason I entered graduate fine arts 'studies' was because my one deal-breaker condition was met; my thesis director agreed to my basic premise: "Art cannot be taught."

    Since art cannot be taught, the building housing academia is just one more location, among countless just-as-adequate alternate locations, to demonstrate how art is, the vital practice of your life's philosophy. If you are an anti-academic, you can still master your own personal art practice within the context of academia because your art is not fundamentally a product of external influences.

    Your own art practice, the fruit of that practice, if you are working the true of your own artistic sense of yourself, is a manifestation of the unique individual artistic elements embedded in your individual's D.N.A. , and as such it cannot be taught to you, it cannot be given by another, it cannot be copied by any other, it cannot be borrowed or lent, it cannot be stolen from you as it must be made by only you, the unique original authentic author.

    Because like a book, your art work’s dust jacket can only sport your photo, the original unmistakable author’s portrait of himself; author and artist mean you are someone who reaches into the bedrock of being an individual on Earth, so that you are unable to be confused with any other, there are no two identical individuals, this is the nature and nurture of being an individual.

    Imitators are not artists, they are simulated somethings, it doesn’t even merit naming or discussing here.

    William Shakespeare nailed it: “This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.” [Polonius to Laertes in ‘Hamlet’, act 1, scene 3]

    Ross D. Bowden
    Posted by Ross Bowden on Linkedin Group: True Artist: living the art in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  49. As a gallery director I look at work by scads of artists. Formal art education provides detailed study of innovative art - why it grabbed attention, compositional techniques. Being immersed in a university art program forces students to experiment with styles and mediums they would probably not do otherwise. Great art instructors help students develop individuality. Workshops teach how to create like the instructor, leaving the artist to figure out how to incorporate new methods into personal works. I'm amazed at how many self taught artists haven't learned basic composition. And a lot of my favorite artists are self taught.
    Posted by Kate Wickham on Linkedin Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Peggy, I salute your hard work and dedication. I am not trashing people who have academic training! I'm terribly sorry if it sounded like that. What I said was only that the degrees don't guarantee artistic skill, and I do feel some rancor about that. I don't think someone could graduate from a good music school without being an excellent musician.

    Classical academic art training is wonderful, but it's not what most art colleges offer, and it is possibly to acquire it on one's own for a lot less than $40,000 per year. I am an autodidact who is disciplined. Most days I have to force myself to stop working. The assignments I give myself are interesting. I interact with other artists whom are equally serious, when I can find them.
    Posted by Laurel Sternberg on linkedin Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  51. I went to an art school but for 2 years and have lived apart from art communities for many years because of where I was living and working. For me as an artist, like anything, art school is great to learn fundamental techniques and skills.... But is then for an artist to use these skills to create what ever drives them to be an artist... But i am also a strong believer that you do not need to go to art school to be an artist... some people are naturally talented and it really doesn't matter if they go to art school or not. What should really matter is the quality of the work an artist produces and not what art school they went to. And having said that... the more tricks and skills you have in your pocket a more well rounded and creative you can be! So if you don't go to art school still try and learn as much as you can about different techniques to use any and all types of mediums etc.. as a naturally talented artist can benefit from this as well. :0)
    Posted by jessie pitt on linkedin Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Some self-taught artists draw so badly, blind to the possibilities that a good academic education can open up. Some academic artists draw so bloodlessly. I was blessed to have academic training: it got dialogues going, introduced me to the work of great artists who became fellow-travellers, it inculcated rigorous skills. When I started working on my own I had to confront my self, my vision, my relationship to my materials and subject matter - had to make my academic training 'self taught'. The two are poles of one me, feeding in, pulling away, in a dialogue. (Actually, already at university I was arguing, testing orthodoxy against feeling and experience)
    Posted by Lionel Murcott on Linkedin Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  53. As someone who drew 'naturally' I did not realise what I 'didn't know' until I took up a Diploma of Visual Art. Set aside techniques, the swapping of approaches, the input of teachers and other students, the ideas and bank of knowledge of other artist's work to refer to, the trends in art history and their causes, the feedback and stretching of personal boundaries are all moving toward improving me as an 'artist' in my view. I think it is accelerating me in the direction I wish to go. So while it may not have been essential I KNOW I am be better for the studies, I also know I have found a sepcial school, which I am sure makes a difference to this attitude. Latrobe College or Art & Design in Melbourne.
    Posted by Jo Lane on Linkedin Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Academia exists. I exist. Academia critiques. I create the drum beat of my life. Some will listen. some will not. My beat goes on undetered by the noise around me.
    Posted by Peter Filzmaier on Linkedin Group: True Artist: living the art in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  55. I think Kate and Alan have hit the nail on the head. I'm certainly not accomplished by any means, but going to school has been one of the most important things that I have done to develop as an artist.and learn the basic skills you need to know to create to your greatest potential. Also, I cannot stress enough that being around other artists is invaluable. I've also struggled with this due to where I live. Without school I would not have had that exposure. I'm not going to get "the paper," I already have a degree. Maybe at some point I will get a BFA or even an MFA, but that's a ways down the road.
    Certainly some people are naturally talented and have an innate sense of composition and a wonderful use of color. But I don't know anyone who couldn't benefit from the exposure to other artists that school gives you. If you can't go to school, make it a priority to seek it elsewhere!
    Posted by Jennifer Winahradsky on Linkedin Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  56. My partner learned to do art work from 2 graduates from european art schools here in NZ, recognised as highly proffessional because they saw he had talent and taught him for free. He was not allowed near colour until they saw that he learned to draw, he learnt every bone and every muscle and the names of each part of anatomy.
    Then he learned the names of colour how it worked and all that was needed to know for the basics.
    He's taught art, and sought after for over 40 years, and makes me work hard to achieve what I do.
    I joined the learning connextion and gained my advanced diploma, and he helped me far more than they ever did because of his vast knowledge, they lacked. but they taught me a few things as well. so I am grateful for both, but unless the traditional is taught, this knowledge may become extinct.
    Posted by Pamela Moresby on Linkedin Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  57. I'll go with Jesse to a degree. I think you don't have to go to school to paint, but you do have to learn the fundementals somehow. Interaction with others may be as good as the rarified atmosphere of school . I'm not trashing art school..have had over 9 years of it myself, in the 50s and 60s...but had a better time, and learned more in studio experiences at less school like settings. I do think that people who pursue multiple degrees, who are not doing art ed or art history, may be taking too much time away from the hard part..just getting out there and trying things, learning as you go, falling on your face. Exposing yourself to foiks like you and to those who are not.
    However, I do give enormous credit to an instructor I had in my BFA program..very confrontational painter/teacher..did me a world of good to know him. So..it's easy to be opinionated, and I can certainly be that
    Posted by Richard Forster on linkedin Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Academic training greatly enhances natural talent. I learned an awful lot with all the art school training I've had. The most important thing I learned though is How To Learn. (I'd like to put that in italics but It won't work here.) I also picked up a creative thought process that I would never have come by on my own. I can, more often than not, detect a lack of training in the work of self-taught artists. Art schools do a lot to enhance the skill level of any talented person. I recommend it to anyone who is serious about making a career in any art.
    Posted by Ross Michaels on Linkedin Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  59. It often depends on the expertise of the art school to how much you learn. Some art schools teach more than others.I am grateful for what I learned from the art school, but to be honest I learned more from my partner, who learned from proffesionals from a more highly qualified art school than the one I did by correspondence.
    However, you can always learn more about art, and if anyone is willing to go on, art is an ongoing learning and creative experience, even if you teach it, you can also learn from your pupils, but then at least I do.
    Posted by Pamela Moresby on Linkedin Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  60. "I can, more often than not, detect a lack of training in the work of self-taught artists." I agree, Ross. Without a doubt, self-taught artists can become technically advanced in any medium. Trial and error will get you there, no matter how much schooling you have. I've seen it many a time, and sometimes the most proficient of craftsmen are un-schooled. But, it's what comes after you have control of the medium that sets you apart and takes your work up a notch. What lies beyond the pencil, pen tip or brush?
    Posted by Catherine Case on Linkedin Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  61. To have something to say and the skills to communicate what you have to say cannot be taught in school.To be unschooled is such a blessing.To be unencumbered by academic biases....what a blessing.Not to mention it should create in you a lifelong unquenchable thirst for more knowledge and sharper skills to enable the self-taught to continue to tell his/her story.To communicate your story....that is the quest.
    Posted by Ronald Gillis on Linkedin Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Keep in mind,folks,there are many self taught musicians.Its the same thing only music tends to be more for the people.Self Teachers Unite.With the retreat of funding for affordable art education coupled with the disdain for the arts in general,we are the future!!
    Study,Draw,Paint!!!!!
    Posted by Ronald Gillis on Linkedin Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Everything, y’all are saying about what you learned in so-called art college, I learned that in a couple years from an actual working artist. I was also taught how to see, to understand color, and the rest of the stuff it takes you all, anywhere from 4 to 8 years at some so-called University to master. That’s including the history of art, all those books that you all have to read are also available to the general public. It's funny, but great artists, regardless of whether they are visual, musical or any other type normally don't go to university, be it Rembrandt or van Gogh, or Ray Charles or Mozart(they are normally too busy creating). But, with a degree, you then can get a job teaching other talentless people to be so-called artists. I rank most art courses with other very necessary classes in other fields, such as, urban studies, women's studies, black studies, and the rest of the hodgepodge university classes that produce graduates who then go on to teaching art, urban studies, women's studies..... I think you all get the point.
    Posted by fred budin on Linkedin Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  64. For years, I was self-conscius about the fact that I did not have a college degree. Now, I see it as a total waste of time and money. My 'educated' friends, with their rules and formats are not creating art that is any better than my other friends who do not have formal training. Some of the best and most successful artists in my area never set foot in a classroom - with the exception of a few workshops. I still have a lot to learn, but I don't think that college or art school is the place to learn it.
    Posted by Nancy Nuce on Linkedin Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Hi folks. Well I happen to be a self-taught sculptor. I turn mostly scrap metal into works of art. I had metal fabraction related schools in the US Navy, but once on the ship my training began all over again. Each civilian welding job that followed included some kind on the job training intentional or not.
    School is important whether its a mig welding course, or on how to make your own paint pigment. I never did well in certain subjects in school as my spelling and grammer may give away. But the question is academic qualification and proficiency.
    Someone can study me and learn what equipment I use and how I use it. A study could record the numerous locations where I find my materials. You could even study how to interact with classes of people other than your own. I quess I'm middle class. As a academic you could then write a book and teach a class. But you wouldn't create a Gary Kandziora.
    I do think I am proficient at what I do. I also think I could teach others to do what I do better then a person who was only schooled in the process. Just like any art or profession there are things you have to learn on your own. Learn to invent. In school you'd be told welding cast iron to steel is not a strong weld don't do it. But I created a Gargoyl using large 90 degree cast iron pipe elbows as its shoulders welding them to steel pipe for arms. I turned up the welders amperage on the stick welding machine and gouged into the cast iron anchoring the 2 metals like gripping fingers.
    Experience is also knowlege.
    I'm 57 and 19 years ago I discovered I was an artist. I know it came from bits of my life. What I'd seen, learned, done, believed and all that jazz.
    During my first year as an artist a Milwuakee Art magazine did an artical on me. The writter was also a teacher of ceramics at the Milwaukee School of Art and Design. During the interview we spoke about how I started, and my sales came up. He looked at me side ways and said you've only been doing this for only 10 months and you are already selling that much art? I've never sold anything he confessed. I don't remember how long he'd been trying. He is the only one academic I can comment on.
    Self-taught artist can and are proficent.
    Posted by gary kandziora on Linkedin Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Well, here I am again! One will never, ever, learn all that is needed to know by themselves. You cannot sit on a mountain top, alone from the world, and expect to produce something great! We all need education (not only to explain HOW, but to allow us to know WHEN and WHY what we do is important to the finished product). Collaborative efforts most always produce a better product. Being self-taught produces you....being community schooled produces miracles!
    Posted by David Alter on Linkedin Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  67. I agree with Richard. I am mostly self-taught. I had to learn how to make things work...something in me knows I can "probably do it" and I brain-storm and try different things until I get on the right track. This cannot be taught. How to paint raindrops on roses can be taught...and it is about the only thing I really ever got from an art class...besides the wonderful association with other artists. Still, I wish that I had the art school refinement.
    Posted by Kathy Bergen on Linkedin Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Im glad I went to art school and did it by correspondence, because it gave me permission to do art what I longed for and if I did not take this degree other people would see to it I did not have the time to do the art work because of the demands they made on my life.
    Art School gave me a way I could learn, even if I learned more from my partner and friend than I ever learned from them.
    However, not all of you are at the mercy of interfering people like family who think they have the right to walk in and dictate what they think you should do. And no, they did not take no for an answer. Most of you would not realise how much people(mainly family) who oppose you can do, I had to fight to do art work. Now they back me when I have the letters!
    I am grateful to learn anything from anyone, and art school gave me a range of different approaches from each mentor I got and from seeing some of the work of what other students did. I did not get to meet them, as I am a long way from Wellington.
    To be successful with art, nothing escapes hard work, although people like my family don't regard art work as "Work", they say all artists are lazy. It is why they never developed their own hidden skills.
    My opinion, is that you can learn from anyone who does art work or even tries, be it a do it yourself artist, proffessional, fellow student or someone just starting out. I am happy to learn from the lot
    Posted by Pamela Moresby on Linkedin Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  69. I'm now 83 years old, and still making art. I REMEMBER when it was NOT NECESSARY
    to have those years in an art school, nor to have those "Qualifying" letters after your name.
    ALL artists were either self-taught or studied privately with admired mentors. When I am
    confronted with those lists that say, " what is your highest acedemic degree?" I'm quite
    annoyed, since although my academic career was short (an AA degree) I went on to stury
    privately with some of the finest teachers in the world in my various art fields. There should
    be on ongoing category for "years of self study"! Shamefully narrow, as it is, with no
    knowledge of history!
    Posted by Jenny Hunter Groat on Linkedin Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  70. I guess I'm living in a dream world. If so, I prefer not to be awakened. I've painted for a lot of years and yes I am a product of higher education; a part of which was professional art school. As for critics, I say worry not. In my experience I have seen a lot of "self taught" artists who have had wonderful acceptance. Perhaps in some parts of the world there are those who look at credentials first. In my experience the decision makers look at the work first. Maybe it has changed but it used to be that the really important people could care less about your degrees. They wanted to see what you could produce.

    I have taught in a School of the Arts for over twenty years and I must admit that I have seen so-called teachers who had papers but were very weak in painting and drawing skills. Thankfully, none of those exist in our school. But like other institutions, no school is better than its faculty. During the 60's many of us were affected and oppressed by the "can't paint, can't draw" crowd. Thankfully, I don't see them much anymore.
    Posted by Don Rankin on Linkedin Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  71. I am a self Taught Artist, who 30+ years ago passed up the chance to go to KC Art Institute, a decision I now regret. I decided back then to get into Electronics due to my fascination with the emergence of Computers. After leaving that profession and carpentry I got back into the Art I loved to do. I have had success but wish had learned more of the various methods of producing different types of art. I have yet to run into a situation where someone asked about my academic credentials in relationship to Art...
    Posted by Bob Schmidt on Linkedin Group: True Artist: living the art in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Thanks for your perspective, Don. Ah, the 60's. I took classes at an avant garde school, which used to be Chouinard. No art history, no classical drawing, no anatomy. Rather, we read 'The Art Spirit' and 'Zen and the Art of Archery'. Also, we had demonstrations of Zen calligraphy. I'd say the chief benefit I received there, for which I am truly grateful, was the encouragement to respond to assignments in an unexpected way.
    Posted by Laurel Sternberg on Linkedin Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Education=essential.Brick and mortar education=not the only way.If it where ,half or more of the great art we love would not exist.......just sayin'
    Posted by Ronald Gillis on LinkedIn Group: Fine Artists
    in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Two questions: 1) Who would you say were the ten most proficient artists of ALL TIME?
    2) How many of those had ANY academic qualifications?
    Posted by tom de gruyl on LinkedIn Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Fred, it appears that you have a negative opinion about formal education in general. I am a career artist who went to school and learned that my work could have a place in the world that was larger then my local community. That I could run a business of my work and that I could publicize myself in the process. My education was not to become a teacher but to become better and go further then I thought possible. I have made my living selling my work have you? It is often with the help of others that we achieve what we are truly capable of. I do not see a reason for your contempt of education unless you feel inadequate for your lack of study?
    Posted by Barry Scharf on LinkedIn Group: Fine Artists
    in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  76. I attended college of fine arts in seventy-five - art history, life drawing, color theory etc. The drawing teacher was excellent The students protested the work load. He was removed The administration decided feeling was as good as doing. I watched students mesmarized over paint squeezed out of a tube. I still appreciate the good teachers.
    Posted by Peter Filzmaier on LinkedIn Group:Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  77. I suppose it depends on the college you attend, or on your tutors. But, I've known many people with a degree in art that can't draw or paint as well as I can. This however doesn't make me feel great, it just makes me wonder how much better I may have been with a good art education. Art has plagued me all my life and for various reasons I never got an art degree. Now all I'm left with is a nagging feeling that there's some big art secret that I'm not privvy to.... Reasure me, somebody.
    Posted by Kevin Smith on LinkedIn Group:Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  78. am close to the same age as Jenny and I have to say that when I did my schooling (graduate) in the 1970's it was very clear that if you were looking for an entry to teaching art at the university or college level you absolutely needed a graduate MFA degree. And this had been true for many years before I went to grad school.

    This is even more so the case now. However if you are not interested in teaching art at that level then perhaps it is less important to get an advanced degree. In that case just doing study with other artists or workshops is fine. However I would also say my graduate study enormously expanded my understanding of art and my own personal work and moved me along on my path as an artist much faster than just doing study evenings and weekends with other artists. However everyone must find their own path.
    Posted by Stan Bowman on LinkedIn Group:Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Kevin, I think the nag is there for a reason - sorry no reassurance. Hard thing is that once you've drawn/painted for years, if you study, some stuff you are taught seems elementary - but for me it filled in so many gaps - and inspired so many things that I was happy to go over some same ground but with new people - and educated me in contexts I had not thought of or fully understood - allows material experimentation with expert advice - love it. I couldn't cope with the nagging feeling - had to do it, and v v glad.
    Posted by Jo Lane on LinkedIn Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Barry, I have nothing against formal education, in fact I have one, yes I've made money selling my paintings, but since I've always own successful business, I've never have to make a living at it. Also been part of corporate America, and have a degree in engineering and took postgraduate courses. My complaint is what has happened; I see what's coming out of college now, people with worthless degrees. It has become a sham, this pushed everybody should go to college, not everybody is capable, so the to fix that, they came up with these courses of study, which teaches you nothing but give to a degree. The young people work for me, tell me learn more from me in a week then what they learned in the four years of wasted time in college. Nowadays, after graduating, or sometimes during your college career, you have to become a slave, his called internship, why do you need an internship, because you didn't learn anything in college. When you graduate college, should have knowledge, not just the degree. About a year ago, I thought about going back, so I went online just to check, put out a couple feelers, I was inundated with phone calls and responses from so-called colleges all over the country, who didn't care too much about my background, or really what I wanted to study, instead all they kept saying was, we can get you a loan, kids coming out of school right now are saddled with enormous debt, that because of what they studied they can't pay back, what you've seen, is a bunch of scam artists who called themselves professors, who are being supported by the American taxpayer who is guaranteed these worthless loans. $50,000 to become a social worker, and make $10 an hour. Just saw a report on CNN, that 70% of the degrees coming out of college now are in the arts, Rembrandt to go to college nor did Van Gough, the billionaire who invented PayPal, is offering money to tell the kids to drop out of college and go into business. Even when I was in college, they taught you to work for someone else, and the kids coming out of college now don't know which way is up, the whole education system I find is out of whack, we reward people for mediocrity, everyone gets a trophy and the degree. Was having by auto fixed the other day, there was a 10th grader studying in the waiting room, and I asked him what he was studying, he said honors chemistry, I asked organic or inorganic? That's when I got the window, the same look you get when you hand some kid $10.05, at McDonald's, for a $4.05 bill. take a look at my resume, fredbudin.com see what you can do in the art world without a degree.
    Posted by fred budin on LinkedIn Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Good comments by both Jenny and Stan. I'm almost 67 and hope to still be painting in my 80s. Have been paintings since I was a child, with the commitment to it developed at 13 or so. I did take training and it was good back then...since everyone was not trying to be a painter..but that is a personal gripe.

    Agree with Stan about needing advanced degree(s) to teach ...or to work in art history areas, say in museum work. I think that some BFA's, (maybe most), are better than most MFA's in fine arts, depending on the school, of course. When I took my BFA in the 60s, it was at a school that had a very good reputation and still does. It was a 'gutsy' school then and those teaching at that time were mostly professional artists, not professional teachers. I think that made a huge difference, since they could more readily explain how they did what they did by example, and not simply a lot of facts about technique and etc. I still say that what you learn in the real world is more useful than what you, may, learn in schools. And what you learn from experimenting and and interaction wiht others who are experimenting is most valuable. That's how you develop the ethic to do your work, and that is so vital for your development.

    Posted by Richard Forster on LinkedIn Group: Visual Artists and their Advocates in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Ahh, yes the Zen of Archery. I still have my copy. However, I spent almost 30 years in a classic Japanese discipline so the book had much meaning for me. I had associates who graduated from Chouinard. Small world.

    Peter, I am aware that some administrators are short sighted bean counters. In my opinion they usually die on the vine and can kill their school. Committed students are hard to fool. They are like the roots of thirsty plants seeking water; they keep searching for sustenance.
    Posted by Don Rankin on LinkedIn Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  83. When I look at what is selling in the gallery..I actually wonder if you need either to sell art...Art is a personal expression of what you are trying to portray... we can are learn the correct way to paint , draw with perspective ..or drive a car...but that is not always the way we like to do it. Subjects like colour understanding and painting techniques etc need to be taught/learnt..we need inspiration to drive us...but most of all we need to pick up a brush or pencil...and not be afraid that it will be seen as incorrect.Time and Practice, practice and practice... develops both skills which are taught and talent which is within. Dont be put off because you dont have a qualification or degree in art... that paper just confirms you have spent a few years learning your subject. your portfolio of skil and talent built up over time will get you much further...and don't lose the therapeutic and creative aspects of your art form because someone else says its not correct..
    Posted by Carol White on LinkedIn Group: Landscape Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  84. LOVE this dialogue. I've gotten some school training, mostly self taught. I need lots of help: study books, some wkshps, art magazines, talk to art friends & watch videos. What you folks are teaching me is what I need to do to prepare as I get ready to teach classes this summer & fall. My heart, my art is not enough. Seeing the student as a work of art ready to express him/her self and needing to know what tool to grab first - teaching them how to see, is that not the challenge?
    Posted by Rusty Parenteau on LinkedIn Group portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  85. On my profile... I state that "I missed the boat" when it came to a college degree for art. My Father (who is an amazing painter) did encourage me to study and learn always. He did not think highly of the teaching I would obtain in art school and never told me which way I should go. He let me figure it out for myself. So now, (fast forward) I am a dedicated artist who realizes how important "education" is. Whether it is from college, workshops, books, observation, etc... The more I learn, the better my skills. I do wish that I had learned some techniques early on instead of running into brick walls now. Would have a college degree helped? Maybe... Is it better that I had learn on my own? Maybe. But there is no doubt in my mind that "education" is the key word and will solidify passion, in whatever path is chosen. Where the education comes from? Does it really matter as long as you create with a free mind and spirit.
    Posted by Cindy (Ramstead) DeBonis on LinkedIn Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Good point Peter. Rusty, as for teaching how to see..Good thought, lofty ambition and I think you should strive for it. However, remember that many are called, few are chosen.
    In 20 years or more I have seen many bright eyed hopefuls. Many hundreds in fact. The sad thing is that in over 20 years the ones who really shine are very few. What I am trying to say is that we can teach the basics but it is a lot like sowing seeds. Some mature and some don't. I never try to predict who will bloom and who will not. All have an equal chance provided they dedicate themselves to their calling. In the final analysis I think it is a journey for all of us. Some may just be down the path a little farther.
    Posted by Don Rankin on LinkedIn Group: Portrait Painters in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  87. To me the question is what the level of art expertise that a particular art school teaches and what they specialize in.
    Then you need to look at the trends of art work in the galleries, modern abstract art or photographic painting .
    Next have a look and see what the ordinary people around you like.
    Personally, to me any art school worth it's salt should teach proportions of anatomy of people and animals, in all ages..Perspective, how to use a pencil to draw.
    Then colours and how to use various mediums.
    I don't know if the teachers in the art school knew completely what this was. They did teach creativity and had some knowledge, but not the lot.
    In my opinion, if the basic skills of drawing, perspective, anatomy and colour sense is not taught properly, it may be that the so called rules are lost for good, if art schools refuse to teach them or don't know how to.
    However, the public are those who pay for art work, and artists need to be at least half way between art and sensitive to what people would like in an art work.
    Posted by Pamela Moresby on LinkedIn Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Pam, you can't teach creativity, either your creative or not, you can teach someone to paint to draw but not how to create. As the painting for the public and was to sell, and that's the only reason he might as well be an accountant.
    Posted by fred budin on LinkedIn Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Well I would suppose you are right Fred. I had to learn the hard way that not everyone is teachable in the creative line.
    I would like to believe that there are some good art schools out there. The trouble is, getting a job at the end of it or else starting out to make a living on your own.
    I am well pleased Barry says that he teaches in a very successful school.
    Posted by Pamela Moresby on LinkedIn Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Pam and sometimes being creative gets in the way of leaner how to paint correctly(for want of a better word), I taught a senior (old people - which I am now) group, there was a folk artist in the group, no matter how hard I tried he could not, as most folk artist< understand perspective, everything came out flat, but
    Posted by fred budin on LinkedIn Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  91. So... if I have watched a surgeon to operations for a few month, then I could try shunting a heart some day? I don't think so, and I would not recommend anyone to suggest such things. On the other end, I totally support the idea of learning on the job: it all depends to what degree, and which jobs are we talking about... because the result of learning on the job very well may be quite catastrophic: a yesterday's UBS intern, a schmuck with no idea or good understanding of finance, weaseled its way into the company, have been trusted with big money, exploited his trust and position, and lost it all. Even if the company legally could sell his body for organs, he could not have paid off a fraction of the damages. Education requirement helps to weed out incompetence. It is a high threshold, and not many succeed getting over it: that tells you something about them. That is true no matter collar color: machinists have grades too, and qualifications are not easy: that separates those that pass from those that say 'system is rigged' and keep scratching their belly.
    Posted by Vaida Maleckaite, Ph.D.on LinkedIn Group: Career Central - sponsored by reCareered.com in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Urge these tools be used:
    CG anime
    3D
    Simulations
    Tests
    Field Evals
    Networking
    for the above.

    MD, Eng, legal must have degrees, the support staff (save Medical)need NOT degrees IE BA-PhD, right??
    Posted by Stephen Russell on LinkedIn Group: Career Central - sponsored by reCareered.com in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Academic gualification should nto be equated with profeciency. You have to get O-J-T to be proficient at any job. Those that don't get o-j-t are relying on short cuts to do the job or task. Reconciliation of any general ledger account is learned through daily performance of the job. If someone does it 5 times, they have transferred their knowledge to the performance of a job. Anyone should be able to a reconciliation; to do ti the way a company wants it done, is to do it to learn the company's procedure, which takes time. Every new employee has the time to learn procedures and learn them correctly.
    Posted by G. Casey Eldridge, MBA on LinkedIn Group: Career Central - sponsored by reCareered.com in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Fred, that's quite true, some people can't understand perspective. Some just stick to their patterns. However, there are many who do cotton on and I can see their progress week by week. The one's that don't venture into perspective , I just leave to work it out their own way and hope they get quality time and enjoy their time.
    Many just want it as a hobby and to enjoy doing art work.
    In the real world, with art work as with everything else, you need to learn the basic rules if you wish to make a living out of it.
    You need to strike a balance out of being creative and knowing how to apply the rules to make a living out of it.
    However, people can surprise you and may come up with an idea you don't expect.
    In the art school I got my qualification by correspondence from, in my final year of Advanced Diploma, I kept on being told to break all the artistic rules.
    My question was, how can you expect people to break the rules if your school doesn't teach them?
    Im not sure seriously how much some of their teachers knew of the rules either.
    However, I got what I aimed to do, I learned from Rick who had learned the "Classical rules of Art", most art schools in NZ have not taught for the past 40 years.
    So some knowledge can be learned from old fashioned books like Loomis.
    I am an admirer of Norman Rockwell's illustrations.
    Posted by Pamela Moresby on LinkedIn Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  95. My Students are computer literate when they reach the advanced classes. Basics are learned the first year. Tool skills are mastered then we go into theory and application of ideas through digital painting or photo manipulation or even 3d modeling. These are classes that are designed to explore creative problem solving and span multiple disciplines. It is at this level the student is exploring creative process just like paint on canvas. They explore the world as artists and solve creative problems for a digital age. They are every bit artists, just in a different medium.
    If you are not computer savvy then you are one of the many dinosaurs of the past. The world is changing and so is art. Art movements follow social and technological advances it is the artist that is on the leading edge of current technology that will shape the future.
    Posted by Barry Scharf on LinkedIn Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Art is made of many disciplines. Im aware that the skills of computer and digital art are emerging and it is a skill. I am self taught in that respect on an old fashioned mac.
    It is a skill that I would like the opportunity to develope but now is not the time. If it arises, I certainly will try it.
    Posted by Pamela Moresby on LinkedIn Group: Fine Artists in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Academic qualifications are useful because the processes challenges you and stretches
    your mind and helps develop techniques in an enviornment that is designed to learn.
    There is nothing there that you can't get on your own but most are not equipped with the kind of discipline to challenge themselves and stretch their own thinking. Also to consider is that there are different qualities of Academic environments for artistic learning.
    Posted by Charles Wallis on LinkedIn Group: Paintings in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Well, partly, with the advent of cul-de-sac post-modernism, everything is art...so to ask "why art?" is gone entirely on a primary level. Why breathe, why worry, why love? We just do, it is in our constitutions...art cannot be taught.

    On the secondary and other refined/confined levels one can relatively measure the subjective response some art generates; yes! everything can be considered art, yet some art generates substantial tangible interest, either on a level of peer appreciation (my favourite, as it represents the democratic equality where apprentices appreciate each other...this must sound a fair bit familiar?), academic appreciation, commercial aquisition response, galleries, showing, collector interest, fan support, selection for publication in surveys of contemporary (ie. living) artists. etc.

    My favourite quotation: "Art is lending meaning to that which has none."

    Ross
    Posted by Ross Bowden on Linkedin Group: True Artist: living the art in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  99. It works both ways. I am a naturally talented artist but my problem has always been a lack of focus and confidence. I have so many ideas an want to work with every material under the sun which has left me not specialising in anything. However , in my one year at an art college I both gained and lost from the experience. I gained inspiration through meeting my fellow students who actually related to my work mnore than the lecturers ( who told me I was trying to run before I had learnt to walk ). My fellow students seemed to envy the way I did eveything different and would rather interperate a still life instead of just trying to create a mirror image of it - the lecturers didn't like that. So the students and being introduced to new materials ; and having access to a kiln ; a printing press ; studio space ; etc all of which are pretty hard to come by otherwise. So now , at age 37 , I have finally realised that what sells me is my years of experience and experimenting with a huge variety of materials and techniques - as well as developing techniques that are unique to me. Instead of listing degrees and certificates I can list real honest experince and knowledge based on years of research done in my own time - and I wouldn't say that anyone is totally self taught at all ; degree or not as everytime you as an artist see a creation by anothr artist , you learn and you are inspired. Don't you just LOVE being an artist???? I do. And am grateful for my natural talent and to all those who have inspired mw.
    Posted by Gina Bowyer on Linkedin Group: True Artist: living the art in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Much of what is learned at college has little to do with one's teachers and more to do with the interactions one has being in that environment and interacting with one's fellow classmates. So (to paraphrase you), if I were you I would certainly not underplay Picasso's formal art education as influencing him and his art. No matter how determined you are to persuade me from what I think and prove yourself "right"
    Posted by Kim Lindaberry on Linkedin Group: True Artist: living the art in response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  101. I enjoy Folk Art. I wonder, had any of these artists had formal training, how much would their art have changed. I believe it may have lost some of its' innocence.
    In response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Picasso was highly trained as an artist learned that in my art history class.
    In response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  103. I'm confused as to what this forum is really about. Do you need an education to make art? Short answer no. There is an endless world of experiences out there and most academic settings realize this and make allowances for it if one decides to pursue a formal education by applying "life" credits towards a degree. Does an education make one a better artist ? Not necessarily. After returning to my grad school I was surprised to see that out of the 10 or so very talented students I attended with, 3 could claim to still be making art. The rest made use of their degrees by finding jobs in art related fields. The reason? Life. Making yourself a successful artist requires putting the time in whether you have an education or not. To those that seem wholeheartedly against an education for art I'd ask, if given a choice would you drive a nail in with your fist? Or would you look around for a suitable stone to to hit the nail on the head? Not finding a stone would you go in search of a hammer? My point being is that an education is meant to give artists the tools they need to not only make art but question how it can be made better not only as a form but as a means of expression.
    In response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  104. A diploma is a measure, accurate or not. The work usually speaks for itself.
    In response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  105. MT McClanahan-Folk Art can be formally trained. I'm wondering if your are conflating Folk Art with Outsider Art. Folk Art would refer to a specific subculture's customs, practices and aesthetics and is more often formally taught through apprenticeship. Outsider art isn't a well defined term but it implies, to the best of my understanding, art that has been produced with little to no connection to training. My thoughts are that visual problem solving and creativity aren't limited to the relatively small number of artists in the world. Humans just do it. Seeing and planning comes naturally to our species of hunter/gathers. Its what gave rise to our intelligence. That being the case I wouldn't be surprised if my neighbor one day, feeling the inspiration, constructed or painted or whatevered, their personal vision. Strangely enough it is the formal institutions of art that validate Outsider Art by providing agency for its commodification.

    Reading back through the posts again I'd also like to point out that not only was Picasso's father an artist but he was an art teacher at the Escuela Provincial de Bellas Artes in Málaga. As such Picasso would have been exposed to painting at an extremely young age. Picasso's language development, which is understood to be at its height at 2 years old, would have been processing painting as a language just as quickly as his speech and written development. Picasso probably received more training than most artists have ever experienced.

    Picasso was also an excellent sales man for his work and freely plucked ideas from his contemporaries who were also formally trained.
    In response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  106. I am a self taught Artist.
    Actually I don’t like the name "self taught’ because we all know and learn with other and from others. I was born in Paris in 1964. I have always drawn a lot, copying people around me I suppose. My parents were both architect and very abstract in their language, my grand mother was making amazing water colour and my uncle was an abstract painter in the 70s, very bitter on galleries and business if I remember...
    Initially I followed in their footsteps by delving into an architectural career, earning me success and recognition. Then my life took a new direction and I abandoned it all.
    When I moved to London in 2000, I became immersed in the city’s world-renowned arts culture. It was here that I ‘met’ with painting, participated in studio training and developed what will become a vocation and an act of redemption.
    In 2008, I was commissioned to create a large painting representing the Sea by a friend of a friend,,,Unexpected really!. Through this unique painting project a new pictorial questioning was uncovered enabling connections with the past, and a very special relationship was born. This formed the foundations of what would become my ‘Sea Abstractions Collection.’

    I recently apply for a MFA (Master Fine Art) at City and Guilds School of Art.
    It feels as if it was time to get into the hard work, with writing, arguing, not knowing again.

    I don’t want to become this kind of mid career artist who repeats again and again things for which he has been once applause for. I want my art to develop like in making ripples, I want to be able to communicate better about it, with words to say it. Finally I want to find out, between the lyrical and the abstract big whole visions, the real artist I am.

    The interview went very well, we agreed for a full time MFA in sept 2013, and since then got a bit of homework....My pleasure..
    Higher education will humble myself, to say that I do not know, that I need and trust other's energy (the program, the teachers, the peer group) to show me the narrow line to the truth. It will be guidance mainly, you see I have done quite a bit myself...

    For me Art is serious matter but I totally understand those who takes it light!
    In response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Kim, William, You shouldn’t worry about Picasso education so much...Why is it always about Picasso? He gave his name to a car, did you know?
    In response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Academic qualification is knowledge aquired in a forma setting. Proficiency comes from practice, practice, practice. Qualification doesn't make an artist without proficiency. Proficiency can make an artist without having acdemic qualifications.
    In response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  109. A lot of good points here. My view is process over protocol. All the years I spent listening to instructors during school say "do it this way", "do it that way", "follow this prescription", I found may have helped me with an approach or perspective I lacked prior, but later tended to be an anchor in later years. So I say academia simply adds to ones perspective of art holistically, but proficiency?...nah. Everyone has their unique flow regarding proficiency which is cool, but too much educational dogma can stymie raw creativity.
    In response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  110. I'm not convinced about the idea of 'natural talent'. Certainly, some people become proficient very quickly, but that doesn't mean they can't get better with education! Education doesn't need to take the form of a degree, though.
    In response to IAnD's discussion thread: Why is academic qualification equated with proficiency? Where does that leave the naturally talented?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Hurrah, that's what I was searching for, what a stuff! present here
    at this website, thanks admin of this site.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...