You are here:   Art > Don't Go to Art School if you Want to Learn to Paint
 

After all the flattering attention of the modern tutorial system today's student couldn't possibly fathom the humility required for such tasks. Anyone who tries to work diligently in an art school, especially on a picture, will be hounded for it. An often-heard comment on a painting a student has barely begun is "leave it there". Their only rule for painting, as far as I ever saw, is that the haphazard lay-in is always better than a finished work could ever be. In articulation, they believe, all spirit is lost.

During my term of printing I made an aquatint etching, but I had miscalculated the strength of the acid and my final print was almost black all over. It was a term's work, so I had to present it, along with the diagrams I had used in making it, all annotated with timings for the acid bath. First the teachers took the usual step of proclaiming my workings-out as the real art, much more interesting than any actual picture I might finish. My print should have shown a light filled room, but my teachers then challenged me to recognise that this black print was in fact the best thing I had ever done. I protested that the work was a failure, and that I would never present an accident as my final work; part of the fascination of art comes from what I think of as a morality of realising intentions. A teacher replied: "How can you even talk about morality when we are at war with Iraq?" Such willingness to accept accident as worthy of contemplation is typical. Human traces, even human stains, are more interesting than thoughts; every work they approve could, in effect, boil down to "I woz  ere". The contemporary art market tends to treat artists and their products as freakish specimens, but so do the artists themselves. During six years in and out of art schools, I was never once encouraged to visit an art museum, unless it was showing contemporary art, but it was often suggested that I visit anthropological collections. To the modern artist it is no insult to be treated as an anthropological curiosity; it is a compliment, because he takes it as proof of his validity, his specialness. In 1866, in what Gombrich would call the "formative document" of modern art, Emile Zola wrote: "that which I seek above all in a painting is a man, and not a picture..." He went on to declare that "art is... a human secretion". But he could not have guessed where, eventually, his thoughts would lead.

In his sixth discourse, given to Royal Academy leavers, Sir Joshua Reynolds wrote:

Do this justice, however, to the English Academy; to bear in mind, that in this place you contracted no narrow habits, no false ideas, nothing that could lead you to the imitation of any living master, who may be the fashionable darling of the day. As you have not been taught to flatter us, do not learn to flatter yourselves.

This is, in every clause, precisely the opposite of what our modern art schools promote. We have already seen the flattery and the false ideas; but there is more.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Russ Coleman
March 29th, 2013
1:03 AM
I couldn't agree more. This mirrors my experience in the early nineties. The institution I applied to was an art department of a Further Education College that had changed to a Polytechnic in my fist year and was a University by the time I gained a degree. The old guard who believed in media and technique were retired out and replaced by tutors who didn't know one end of a screwdriver from the other and would proudly proclaim such, (they were supposed to be teaching me sculpture) When standing my ground and stating that I was a sculptor using plastic mediums to explore a visual language in an attempt to communicate what I was not able to communicate verbally. I was accused of being reactionary, over skilled, and an inverted snob. I was given a years grace when in my second year I was chosen as a "New Contemporary" a big deal at the time. My third year was executed at a distance from the inner circle of favourites. Whats the opposite of positive reinforcement? In the 20 years since I left art school the course has shut down but others have sprung up with tutors who are the progeny of those who taught in the early nineties who are at one more step removed from making and doing. Stack em deep took over and expensive workshops and technicians are a thing of the past, health and safety became a cover all excuse for a lot of cut backs and under funding. I still hit rock draw on paper and cast bronze though. Thanks for a great article and a reaffirmation of what I observed as well.

Anonymous
March 7th, 2013
8:03 AM
art schools only like ugly, stupid and sometimes, bad, art. Beautiful painting? Nope. You'll be laughed out of town. Go back to the masters, that's my advice.

Steve McQueen
October 6th, 2012
3:10 PM
Interesting article. This debate around what is taught has been running for a long time. I was at art school in the mid 80's and none of my tutors in Fine Art had empathy with non-painting. That is one thing, but my concern as someone now responsible for encouraging young people to apply for art school is the lack of practical disciplines and structured context to practice and ideas. In this I think Mr. Willer is on the money, best summed up in his paragraph on the 'anatomy lesson'. Art School produces a lot of arrogant and half-informed ideas and in a jaded world accurately reflects society, which is the point, many would argue. I would disagree. Just as most of my tutors were self-absorbed and unsympathetic in the 1980's, the problem persists. It seems that the (art)culture encourages laissez-faire. Still, while I wasnt taught much, it was a great experience and environment for some of the right and some of the wrong reasons.So long as you can hack it.

Bob Clyatt
October 6th, 2012
2:10 PM
Wonderful analysis and wonderfully written. What is intriguing to me is where this sludge meets the marketplace, and how it is 'sold' to a sophisticated, wealthy collecting public. Or not. Intriguingly there is a new class of gallery and collector emerging (in the US at least) looking for the "re-skilling" of art, for art that somehow bridges classical training and yet still speaks with a contemporary voice. No one should be interested in merely re-creating past masters' work except as a learning step, but taking that foundation and somehow mashing or meshing it together with Now is opening up some exciting new possibilities. Don't doubt yourself and don't give up!

Cliff
October 5th, 2012
1:10 PM
Check out "Art School Confidential" by Daniel Clowes (the comic is better than the movie): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_School_Confidential_film

granitesentry.com
October 2nd, 2012
4:10 AM
Another citadel stormed and taken by the vindictive mediocrities of the Left. Sad, sad, sad.

Anonymous
September 15th, 2012
2:09 AM
I have just read a short version of this article in the Australian Financial Review and it parallels exactly what goes on in Australian Art Schools today.I did my undergrad in two of London's most well known Art Schools and they were heading down that road in the late 1970's. My Doctoral experience in an Australian University was a similar nightmare to Jacob Willer's. I have been made to feel that my opinions and work is trivial in the light of all the more 'cutting edge' and experimental stuff that are going on in the Art college, and my achievements have gone unrecognized totally.I have ended up teaching drawing in the Animation department as a way to earn bread and butter money, and the powers that be exercise all their power through lies and evasions to ensure that I am not allowed to supervise any postgraduate student who might request me, in case no doubt,I infect them with my dangerous and subversive ideas about learning to draw and the necessity of gaining some skills.Students in first year Fine Art are informed and I quote "We are not going to teach you to draw in case we compromise your creativity!!!" Students are marked down in assessment for the reason that "they have too much skill" - you mus5t "paint from the heart". while on one level I have no problem with Romanticism, they would deny it as anything useful - but this is the most Romantic stupid thing to say to a student who has paid to come and learn something that i ahve ever heard. Go Jacob Willer I am right behind you.

Grimm
July 8th, 2012
11:07 AM
Willer is very astute in pinpointing Romanticism as the prime source of the decline. The Romantic notion of the pure and innocent creative spirit descending into a 'fallen' world which can only corrupt (rather than ennoble) with its systems of education has a persistent appeal to the sensitive souls drawn to the world of art. Added to this we have the (often heard) fine artist's contempt for 'mere craftsmen' as though mastery of the medium were somehow demeaning and restricted the flow of inspiration from the 'spirit'.

trialanderr0r
June 23rd, 2012
11:06 PM
That Sir(als ich kan), is a rather good painting...

Anonymous
June 23rd, 2012
2:06 PM
Very definitely true in it's assessment of the curriculum of most degree granting art schools. There are, however, many alternatives in the forms of atelier programs and schools which are run like trade schools (in America there is the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts for example) and there is always the chance for a determined student to gain an apprenticeship with a skilled painter or sculptor or print maker. The problem is in the desire to become certified rather than skilled. It's no use bucking a corrupt and decadent system while seeking to use it's reputation further down the line. The main question that any sensible person would ask is "...and you paid money for this?" Freedom exists. museum copying is still allowed and there are many masters of certain disciplines to seek out if one is determined to learn.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.