the last place on earth you probably want to be

Art education has always been a kind of paradox in my mind. Without qualifying my own thoughts, it never made sense to me to “teach” artists–I believed artistic talent was innate (and still do, though I’ve modified my position on art education itself.) It is actually comical that I not only go to art school, but that I love it so much. What’s even more comical is that seven years ago, when it was time to apply to post-secondary schools, I didn’t even glance at OCAD — I felt that Ryerson University was the more “practical” option. I soon found out that Image Arts/New Media was all about becoming an installation artist, which in my mind is even more impractical in its specificity.

I’m moved to write after reading this article from the Gallery of Contemporary Art at UCCS. They quote a passage from Why Art Cannot Be Taught by James Elkins, wherein he states that, “out of a thousand art students, maybe five will make a living off their art, and perhaps one will be known outside her city.” This is a notion I’ve long held to, and in fact it was one of the points I raised when I was trying to convince the Dean of my program to let me skip first year. I wasn’t going to be a star artist, and a year in foundation studies wasn’t going to do anything to change that.

However, I do think that art education has a purpose, and I think it’s effective for many reasons. UCCS seems to advocate instructors whose background is art, not education, and they are supportive of out-of-the-classroom instruction. I support these things as well. However, they also state that, “assignments run roughshod over ideas, students worry about silly things like grades rather than learning, and faculty are managers rather than mentors.”

Here’s why art education in a classroom, with a teacher, assignments and grades is important:

1) Learning art processes. While most art students tend to take studio courses that they already know and enjoy, I think studio classes are key in being able to understand art in general. Learning different methods of art making teaches students not only to recognize how other art is made, but appreciate the difficulty or eschew its ease. Stepping outside of one’s comfort zone in terms of materials can also inspire new aesthetic and technical ideas.

2) Pushing your creativity to new places. Without assignments, students are left in their own minds. The One-in-a-Thousand student will thrive, yes, but the rest will be idle. Assignments serve as a great stepping stone for students who are continuing to develop their style. I agree that artists clear in their intent and style may be stifled by assignments, teachers and grades, but I don’t think art education should be changed to suit them — they are outnumbered, of course, and I don’t think being present in an art school is necessarily detrimental to their talent. Boring, yes, but does it make their skill disappear? I don’t think so. Assignments provide access to new realms for students who may not have traveled to them otherwise.

3) Understanding your competition. Being in a classroom with other aspiring artists is important for knowing where one stands in the artist-strata. This is sort of tied into my next point, so perhaps I’ll continue there.

4) Getting Critiqued. I hate critiques. My critiques at Ryerson were one of the primary reasons I dropped out. I had one instructor who loved everything I hated, and hated everything I loved. It made me understand, in a very simple way, the subjectivity of art education. With that in mind, however, I think critiques serve an important purpose, particularly in becoming aware of what one’s peers are capable of. If anything, I think critiques and grades are actually detrimental not in that students have to worry about them, but for the most part I think they provide a false sense of success. Like Elkins said: One in a thousand. There are a lot of sub-par artists in art school who are getting good grades.

OCAD has been an exceptional institution despite its “conventional” classroom-teacher-grades learning structure. All of my instructors (even in liberal studies) have successful careers in the subjects they teach, and are outstanding lecturers and teachers. My experience with faculty at OCAD lies in direct opposition to my experience at Ryerson, where instructors were “successful” in their careers (though little was shared about them) but were awful instructors.

Ultimately, it comes down to organization. Art students understand that art is subjective, taste varies. They aren’t at school to be praised for their talent; they are there to create networks, learn new things. These opportunities are absent when organization doesn’t exist. Structure is the only thing that can make a subjective environment as objective as possible.

_________