Philosophy: does classical study harm or stunt the artist?

[bjorke]

Um, Ed, I hope you realized I pointed at that guy as a narcissitic twit (oops, wrong vowel)

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Someone (Thelonius Monk, maybe) said:

"You have to learn the rules before you can break them."

I also argue with any art one has to learn somewhere the mechanics of the medium and practice.

It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize how many things one can learn wrong without some guidance.

You don't spew forth poetry without learning a language first.

You don't spew forth music without mastering at some level the basics of how the instrument works (and is kept in tune).

Some things can be learned through self-instruction, but the isolated artist who believes him/herself to be a grreat with allegedly no influence from anyone else usually masters EGO 'first, and perhaps little afterward.

Even the 100 Monkey Theory takes 100 monkeys.

ook ook (1 short)

 

[zenrhino]

Im all for the idea of studying classical work in any field (be it art, philosophy, rhetoric, etc.) just so I can avoid re-inventing the wheel and thinking I'd actually invented the wheel.

Why put all that heartbreaking work into falling into the same potholes as those who went ahead of you? Just so you can say, "I broke my axle, now I've got some real cred"?

There isn't anything left that's original in art. It's all just stealing/sublimating/horking/borrowing/whatever from each other. The originality happens when you look at what's been done before and make it happen with your eyes and hands and heart. Tough to know where you're going if you don't know where you've been.

 

[Whatadame]

When I was about 8 years old, I came up with the idea of drawing pictures with thread. I had just learned to do basic mending and I had this lightbulb go off in my head. So I started doing it.

Then I showed it to my grandmother, who opened up the sea chest that she had used when her family emigrated to the U.S. It was full of the most beautiful embroidery you ever saw. She was from Madeira, and any young woman worth her salt learned how to do beautiful "red work" at an early age.

So I reinvented embroidery. But then I LEARNED embroidery, and it opened up a whole new world of possibilities. I still did it my way, but I had more tricks in my bag.

The need to create is part of making art. And anyone who needs to create can be/may be an artist. Will they be a good artist? Maybe. Will they be a better artist if they learn what is possible and what has been done before? Almost definately.

In other words, your friend is full of crap.

 

[removed account4]

if your friend doesn't want to learn
through being steeped in the classics, that is OK.

i've eaten at places where the cook didn't have any "formal training"
and the food was pretty good!

as long as your friend is happy, isn't that what counts ?

 

[pellicle]

Um, Ed, I hope you realized I pointed at that guy as a narcissistic twit (oops, wrong vowel)

Hey, I thought you were making a statement that artists need to express themselves (even if they are whackos) and consider commercial issues later if at all.

 

[jd callow]

That's like a being a writer who refuses to read!

Excellent!

Understanding what came before is important if you wish to go forward in a meaningful way. Seeing the possibilities as offered by other works is one way to begin to wrap your mind around any medium.

 

[JBrunner]

Yes. Wanting to be an artist, but refusing to participate. The attitude is behind the general dumbing down of many professional fields. Throw in some enabling shortcut technology on top of it, and the truly mundane has been completely achieved.

 

[Early Riser]

Why take the time and effort to study and master any given field when today all you have to do is claim that you're a genius. The value in classical study is that it usually leads to mastery of your tools, without which you are quite limited, and classical study gives you a huge reference of what has been done. This reference doesn't close your options or stunt your creativity it expands it.

Our society has become very democratic in one way, that is it is no longer a meritocracy, where the merit of someone's work, or their level of achievement is celebrated. In our Paris Hilton/reality TV show society even mediocrity is praised. In seems the bigger a loser you are the better your hopes for financial reward. This attitude does not encourage a young artist to spend years studying and toiling at their craft. Why bother? Hard work and talent are not the keys to success, a gimmick is, being able to bull shit people is.

I feel that those who rant against classical/traditional study have a different agenda, they are not truly arguing for or against the merits of classical study, they are trying to justify their own personal merits despite their lack of training or study or trying to justify why they shouldn't make the effort. Let's be realistic here, can any really argue against have a deeper depth of knowledge of one's chosen field? Is too much knowledge really bad?

 

[Ed Sukach]

Um, Ed, I hope you realized I pointed at that guy as a narcissitic twit (oops, wrong vowel)

No, I hadn't. I did not recognize the line as a link, and did not visit.

I just did ...

Interesting work! My reaction could be most honestly described as "mixed" and indefinite. Does he have the right - some sort of right - to do work like this? ... CERTAINLY!

Is his work "Art" .... Yes.
Is it GOOD art? Given the test that it does have an effect on my emotional state - although I'm not sure what that effect is ... Yes.

Is he - or are any of us - ALLOWED to indulge in narcissism in our work - to any level? I would certainly hope so ... although not my major driving force ... or is it? Could it be?

Might that be a description of what we do ... essentially, gazing into a pool, fascinated by ... not our physical image ... but our internal self-so-ness...? And expanding that vision so that it may be shared by others ..?

Damn!! .. but we are complicated beings!!

 

[bjorke]

ymmv I think his "work" is derivative crap & I have it on good authority that he photoshopped-in the woman in "me & her" [sic]

 

[arigram]

You are all just jealous.
I think he's cute.

 

[jd callow]

I think he's cute.

So does he and more.

 

[catem]

Learning about other artists/photographers helps to open your mind to what is possible. It also seems polite to at least take a glance at what's gone before.

There are times, though, when I think it's reasonable be wary of formal study. It has to be at the right time for you. Some people can benefit from throwing themselves into study at a young age. Some people get lost. There can be a danger when institutions become associated with fashions, which can be confidence-shattering if your work doesn't fit. Also, studying alongside highly competitive people, or with the 'wrong' tutors, at the wrong time for you - whatever the 'academic' stage - can be damaging for certain people. All courses need very careful research, you should be able to reject a course/institution that's doesn't work for you, though this is hard if that course/institution has a high reputation and entry is highly selective (you may not be given the chance anyway). Full-time courses, also, are not the only way - there are less formal ways - exhibitions, books, talks, short courses...

Learning about what's gone before helps you to put other work in context and evaluate it. I do believe it can be confusing for some people at certain stages, with regard to producing work - but it can also be a tremendous inspiration and incentive when done in the right way and at the right time, and when you are able to take what's useful and significant to you from the learning experience and leave the rest.

 

[mabman]

I agree that it's very useful to know what's been done (and often why) before trying something on your own - if you try and reinvent something that's already been done at a minimum it's effort that could have been spent on refining your own *actual* original technique, and at worst you'll probably get laughed at for "reinventing the wheel".

Now, I've got a tangentally related question - are those of you who have actually graduated from art schools able to draw/paint/sculpt as well? Did you go in with some skills in those areas or did you learn most of it? Just curious, as taking a look at my local university's art school programme, drawing is a required course that you have to pass. If, extremely hypothetically, I were to ever even attempt art school, this would be a problem - I can't draw beyond doodling geometric shapes.

I would imagine drawing/painting/sculpting would be helpful in understanding light, etc, but for those of us with little visual artistic aptitude beyond photography, how practical is art school to begin with?

 

[bjorke]

I can't draw

This is why there are drawing classes.

The reality of the art world today is that there are people getting PhDs in studio art and using them as entrée into the gallery circuit. If all you want to do is sell head shots, great. But if you have some high-falutin' notion of yourself as The Next Big Thing then you'd either have a very very hot-looking girlfriend or be willing to spend a lot of time in outsider and lowbrow art events before being discovered by the right rich people.

Either than or subsidize yourself by getting a job at the bank and doing your art after 10pm and for a couple of hours on the weekend. Of course, if your talent is well-nigh infinite, 5% of your time times infinity is still infinity. Don't sweat it.

For mortals, I suggest:

 

[MattKing]

Bjorke:

Have you ever met a happy artist?

This is a serious question.

To a certain extent, I think there is a correlation between happiness and contentment, and I don't think I have ever met an active, currently creative artist who is content.

I do think, however, that many artists who are active and creative feel joy, and satisfaction. With respect to the OP's original question, I think careful classical study contributes to the breadth and depth of that joy and satisfaction.

Matt

 

[catem]

...But if you have some high-falutin' notion of yourself as The Next Big Thing then you'd either have a very very hot-looking girlfriend ....

That's me out then. :rolleyes: ...

As for drawing classes - yes, go for it. I didn't do an 'art' course - but a more practical photography-based one, with quite a lot of contextual study - but over time had also done a substantial amount of life-drawing classes (evening classes) - enough to get a sense of light, and form. (Also enough to realise, if having to choose, I preferred the camera). You don't have to go to art school to do these things - there are many part-time options available - in the UK anyway.

Tell you one thing, I think these sorts of courses/ pursuing knowledge/ expanding horizons etc is more profitable than spending too much time on forums!

edited to add: in fact for drawing classes you're probably better off thinking 'part-time' as formal drawing plays a very small part in undergraduate art school studies.

 

[walter23]

Anyone feel that study kills the art in the artist?

Probably just kills the ego in the egotist.

 

[Struan Gray]

I have a fetish about good academic libraries. I love it all: the smell, the hushed reverence, the sense of boundless knowledge, and the tea rooms. In my day job the library has mutated to become merely the institution that pays my online subscriptions, so photography is ideal excuse to immerse myself in all those loverly books.

I just discovered a 'standard work' on the cultural aspects of the Swedish landscape. Published in the 50s it has letterpress printing, tipped in plates, and those super-sexy uneven edges to the pages that makes rare book specialists break out in a cold sweat at fifty paces. How could my photography not be enhanced?

 

[SuzanneR]

I agree that it's very useful to know what's been done (and often why) before trying something on your own - if you try and reinvent something that's already been done at a minimum it's effort that could have been spent on refining your own *actual* original technique, and at worst you'll probably get laughed at for "reinventing the wheel".

Now, I've got a tangentally related question - are those of you who have actually graduated from art schools able to draw/paint/sculpt as well? Did you go in with some skills in those areas or did you learn most of it? Just curious, as taking a look at my local university's art school programme, drawing is a required course that you have to pass. If, extremely hypothetically, I were to ever even attempt art school, this would be a problem - I can't draw beyond doodling geometric shapes.

I would imagine drawing/painting/sculpting would be helpful in understanding light, etc, but for those of us with little visual artistic aptitude beyond photography, how practical is art school to begin with?

Went to art school, and was pleasantly surprised to discover that, yes... anyone can learn to draw, paint, and sculpt. I found sculpting the hardest and most frustrating, and thankfully, didn't need to take any more classes in it beyond the foundation year. I was a photo major at the start, and was never one of those kids who had drawings just flow from their fingers, but that foundation year, with no photography classes, as scary as the prospect was at the start, probably has informed my photography more profoundly than the any other year of school.

And if you're smart, you will find a way to make your art, and a living. Contentment, happiness?? YMMV.

 

[keithwms]

Obviously, classical training can be very beneficial to some. The relationship between artistic and business aspects would seem especially important for anyone entering the field at this point. Photography is a very, very competitive field (one might say, oversubscribed). It takes not only talent and determination but also mentors and colleagues (allies?) and a good business sense to get you where you want to go. In a coop full of peacocks, very few shy birds are noticed.

I have zero training in photography or art in general, and have carefully avoided it because I do not wish for it to become my money maker (if that were possible). One thing I have learned about my own personality is that whenever I mix pleasure with business, the pleasure is almost lost entirely! The business aspects have almost completely destroyed my appreciation for my own academic area, so I guard the creative sanctuaries of photography and music very closely.

 

[kevs]

Hi

I was just speaking with a friend of mine who (not a photographer) who argued that he didn't want to study art as that would only interfere with his talent and his expression.

Personally I don't feel this way and seem to recall having had discussions with artistically inclined skeptics who had (after doing their BA) found that they benefited not only personally but interpersonally with the ability to communicate in a newly understood 'language' of description of styles and influences which had previously been unconsciously perceived but not consciously understood or articulateable.

Anyone feel that study kills the art in the artist?

Hi Pellicle,

I think your friend has an arrogant attitude. I've been there myself; after joining a camera club and winning a few comps, I thought I had talent and expression. How wrong I was!

As you say, visual art is a means of communication, a 'language' with its own 'grammar'. It doesn't communicate with words, it works on a whole different level of awareness and understanding. We can be emotionally affected by art and not be able to identify a reason for it.

Anyone can use a paintbrush, paint and canvas, and think themselves an artist. Anyone can buy a camera, and think the same. The same can be said of any artistic medium. But only a relatively few will produce anything resembling art.

There's nothing wrong with being influenced. Anyone who's looked at art and been affected emotionally or otherwise has been influenced. I also think that art education destroys the egotistical belief that one is 'creative' and 'expressive', and puts one's abilities into perspective.

Having recently graduated with a photographic B.A., I've revisited the same camera club. They have an exhibition on locally. After fifteen years, their memebrs are still producing the same bland, pretty picture, chocolate-box images! They haven't contextually studied their medium, and have learnt nothing - unless it's how to remain ignorant!

I think that without study, formal or self-initiated, your friend will produce derivative, constipated work that communicates nothing. I also think that he has a lot to learn!

 

[bjorke]

Have you ever met a happy artist?

Tons

 

[Akki14]

There are times, though, when I think it's reasonable be wary of formal study. It has to be at the right time for you. Some people can benefit from throwing themselves into study at a young age. Some people get lost. There can be a danger when institutions become associated with fashions, which can be confidence-shattering if your work doesn't fit. Also, studying alongside highly competitive people, or with the 'wrong' tutors, at the wrong time for you - whatever the 'academic' stage - can be damaging for certain people. All courses need very careful research, you should be able to reject a course/institution that's doesn't work for you, though this is hard if that course/institution has a high reputation and entry is highly selective (you may not be given the chance anyway). Full-time courses, also, are not the only way - there are less formal ways - exhibitions, books, talks, short courses...

I have to agree with this side of things. I entered art college over here in 2000 and got told my drawing was "fresh" (in a very negative intonation) and later that continued to just "shit but that doesn't matter now you're in the media pathway". I basically gave up studying BA(hons)Photography because I was tired of sitting through peer critiques where you were egged on to say bullcrap equivelant to Tracey Emin et al in the YBA movement :rolleyes: and egged on to say no you didn't screw up, you did that on purpose and the purpose is .... please fill in the blank here. to make up for technical failings... Taking 2-3 years time off from photography helped me and now I might finally be on track to doing some learning that I'm actually interested in and that will work for me eg not being insulted and actually being taught and guided for a change.