Oh, I would like to add though that here in holland if you just stick with the program you’re unlikely to become a fullfledged and fully skilled artist. In my former vfx training we didn’t even have life drawing or observational training at all. The results show for it.
But in most traditional painting education you’ll get a solid foundation on which you can build if you know what you want.
i used to think that art schools here in the phils. REALLY suck. and i was hoping i could get the chance to study overseas. but from everything i read, it seems like its pretty much the same.
i never did learn so much in art school back then. meeting other art students, joining art competitions,
reading artbooks, going to different galleries and a few very helpful teachers are my only way of learning art.
i think it’s kinda sad that some people who are into modern arts can’t even produce a simple, decent “classical” artwork. they just probably use the word modern in order to get away with their poor art foundation.
Personally, I think ‘modern’ art is at best a tragedy & classical art is too limited in perspective. My perspective is that modern art should be progressive, moving forward in quality (not trends) similarly to scientific advancements. Trends are probably the biggest evil I see in artistic communities.
Back to the original subject - putting me in art school would be like mixing two volatile chemicals. All I know is that seeing the ‘art’ hanging in the hallways of the University I graduated appeared to be little more than 1st grade drawings. What I love about CG artists is that it requires a combination of creativity and intelligence, those who don’t have it get weeded out fast!
It’s all to do with the modern trend towards mediocrity. If there is no standard by which to measure an artist, everyone is a great artist (of course, everyone is also a poor artist by this token). I tend to lean towards realism and figurative expressionism myself, although I have seen some very well done, meticulously created abstract art. The mention of Jackson Pollack’s name in any thread about the evils of modern art is appropriate, since he was the leading force behind the lazy dumbass slinging paint randomly at a canvas school of modern/abstract art. I tend to also produce a lot of work that can only truly be interpreted by myself, but then I keep it to myself. If you’re producing art to be exhibited to the public, it should be produced with an effort to make it somewhat accessible to people other than oneself.
If I were to write a book on art, I would wait a few decades from now, and there would be an awful (literally) lot of crap (once again, literally) left out. I do not consider the “poodledog-in-a-tub-of-feces-ist” movement to be worthy of mention alongside such masters as DaVinci or Picasso. I’m not saying that something can’t be controversial, but it must also display some skill or technique. I don’t care if mommy and daddy spent a billion dollars to put your pot-smoking ass through art school.
So true… That is why… Truth betold most great artist are still self taught.
A great majority in my school have problems with drawing… Which is a real shame. But hey I am not worried… If they do not want to develop those basic drawing skills that is ok with me. School can only teach you so far. It helps in many aspects but not in the side of motivation. If you want to be an artist or designer you have to be self motivated and really learn by your own.
I am not counting out the artist who make works that are abstract in nature at all. Since some are interesting. Though I tend not to be in the groove of art movement right now which leans entirely on abstract and a sketchy feel to works.
I can admire some of those works, but
Copying the look of those since it was taught is not my thing. I am also not into the over controversial works that tend to come out of art schools these days. I mean is everyone in art schools a damn activist against government
Works having to do with Bush here in the US. So what! you do not like him
Half or more of the US hates Bush for something. It is a known fact. Just get over it. Bashing Bush is not original anymore. Things like this. I hate bandwagons. Not saying I am 100% original or anything since you can never be 100% original. Just saying I rather do my own thing and avoid a lot of the forms of thought in my school. I am opposed to the look of artist as well. Why does everyone have to look like a bum or Goth to be an artist. I dress like a normal guy. If people were to ask me what I do
few would ever think I was an artist/designer. It is more original dressing normal in my school lol.
Who were your teachers at the time? I don’t think much was left from the original Bauhaus that revolutionned the arts in the twenties and thirties.
hi,
I dont wish to be contraversial, maybe i am not being. But as most people on this thread seem to have a problem with modern art (i havent read the entire thread, so i apologise if i have guaged it incorrectly), i would like to if i may encourage you to consider much of the work on this site including the award galleries.
Yes the lighting is perfect, the texturing is great, the anatomy is outstanding, but if judged as flat pieces of art in their own right, they are mainly vacuous, mundane an uninteresting and only of any value to people who know the work put in to makling something look so great.
For example, i would put the included image on my wall. I find it amusing. It has artistic value. (im not saying its to everybodies tastes) But i wouldnt put a lot of things on this site on my wall (though there is lots of cool stuff) as they are a lot to do with exercises in creating realism, its all about how good the hair looks, how good the lighting is, how perfect the colours are, how good the anatomy is, how good the skin texture looks, but as a whole, If it is judged as an image which is a piece of art in its own right, to me there is nothing there.
Which is why i beleive some modern art has something to offer when considered vs realism
The artist who drew the picture included feels there is no point drawing it if it doesnt have a purpose about what you are trying to say, where as a lot of CG is the opposite, get as much in there as possible, even if it has no purpose other than showing somebody else how skilled you are or being good enough to put in a film.
Im not saying modern art is great and realism stuff is bad, but there are differnt ways to look at stuffThey did not stop teachning how to draw because of Modern Art. They stopped teaching it because, they are incompetent. They want their lives to be stable, maintain their jobs, thus compromising the educational process to that extent. Being easy on students, passing easy handouts, superficial material taught, all play a great factor in stabilizing their Faculty Annual Report. The problem of education in art is no different than in architecture, which I know very well. They use [top down] approach for a [bottom up] mission. I mean, it’s easier for them (profs.) to engage their students at that level. Most of the profs I knew and met, who are teaching architecture, had no expeience at all in practicing what they teach. That’s why I call what they do Preaching, rather than teaching. Don’t get me wrong, there are profs who are just great, but they are few and rare species nowadays. Additionally, the problem does not lie there only. It’s much bigger. But, that’s another post.
Modern Art changed the world of design, while illustrators, as masterful some of them are, they had very little impact on the world of design. Professions nowadays cross boundaries of disciplines. The best example is CG. Purism is part of the old ideals that helped preserve human culture for centuries, including the masterful techniques of the great masters. The world has changed, novelty is not your enemy, but your friend.
Do you have any evidence that this is true? have you really considered it fully? who specifically are you talking about?
is whether or not instructors are competently teaching fundamentals or bypassing it…
I think most would agree that art instruction should lay a solid foundation … and let the students use their own judgement as to which path they’d like to express themselves…and offer constructive criticism along the way… part of art history is educate …you decide if there’s anything there for you to take from or avoid.
this thread has turned into a quasi flame war about stylistic preference and each wanting to validate their own… at the same time putting down another… that’s what I take issue with
Some of the dialogues i’m reading in this thtread seem almost vindictive…an “us versus them” attitude…
but you know I like all this stuff for the most part…illustrative or fine art or modern…whatever you wish to call it…
i’m actually surprised at how closed minded and judgemental many ofthe posts are.
do your own thing…do you enjoy it? ok move on…
if the issue is about art instruction…let’s keep it there…and stop putting each other down (indirectly)
Thing is somebody says, art instruction, isnt that poor. Then everybody else agrees. Whats the point of that. A good discussion veers all over the place.
14 years in 4 different universities, between 1 B.Sc. and two Master degrees, and teaching as a professor for 5 years. No names will be thrown here.
thats fair enough. i just hate it when people just come out with things that they havent necessarily given full consideration, but you are clearly justified, so i apologise
sure … an actually the more recent pages of the thread are quite interesting…
the illus. vs. modern, the what is art, who is an artist stuff gets old after a while
the main problem in my experience is the actual lack of any base in teaching…basically they tend to reeealllyyy push it with the freedom of expression so much that ina ll that freedom u lack the proper foundation of art principles thus creating a ton of random crap and splatters till the professors come and select a few and say wow these say sooo much…i had the same experienca in graphic class…that one was a laugh…basically the whole semester we were randomly splatting ink zill the professor decidet that that splatter was THE ONE…jeez
I find this criticism of modern art very ironic since this forum’s approach to what it deems is art is quite modern.
I’d say the opposite was true actually, most of the art that recieves the greatest praise here is very traditional, representational/illustrative art- the tools used may be modern, the art for the most part is traditional.
When did you last see a purely abstract or conceptual work posted here?
-Steve
Hehe ~ stop talking and get yer butts on over to the Anatomy Forum and do some work! 
http://forums.cgsociety.org/forumdisplay.php?f=177
Cheers, 
~Rebeccak
What I meant by modern in this case is the way people judge art. Back in the era of Modernism, or modern art, either you are a cubist, or you are wrong. After Jackson Pollock, either you are a dripper, or you are wrong etc. In short, I see criticisms here that deal with the narrowmindedness of these cold conceptualist with a different kind of narrowmindedness that is centered around traditional skills.
I am not trying to undermine the importance of either tranditional skills or theory but right now I see a really wide division between the two.
There are, as people have mentioned, MFA’s who take pride in not being able to render, but also being deviod of any aethestic judgement ( I have my personal aesthetics and my subject view of the world type) who will end as assistants at art galleries.
And then there are people like another, who cannot tolerated anything that does not show virtuosity with the pencil and exhibit outright hostility towards conceptual works.
I know a few people on each side and sometimes it seems they are not even looking at
the work during the critiques but rather at whether the work affirms what they believe what art should be.
I understand where the traditional people are coming from and I hear you, but I think I would rather not CGtalk become the Academie that contemporary art has become.