September 8, 2006
Answers from Artists

(Respondents: Gerry Lynch, Ann Le Pere, Promila Sen, Doug Stuber, Antonio Rivera, Andrea Gomez, Ashlynn Browning)

Gerry Lynch
I think one should continuously give kids reams and reams of used computer paper -that is, paper that is printed on one side, in other words, scrap paper, and a box of Crayolas - and let them "go wild" without any instruction. No demands, no teacher, no "you must color in between the lines," etc. To me, that's all the arts education kids need. NO NEED TO HAVE ART CLASSES IN GRAMMAR SCHOOL. - And with all that drawing that they did on the old computer paper, after twelve years they'll have excellent portfolios to offer colleges. (And if they took some art classes in high school, so much the better for them.) My general advice towards art education is that it's unnecessary. Let kids have freedom to scribble and express themselves by themselves. Dear Artsrambler, I am speaking from experience, and I can vouch for the results. - So, my advice to parents is not to push their kids into being artists. - And, if parents don't want their kids to be artists, they should keep that notion to themselves, because it's just the impetus kids need to "become artists." Yours truly and speaking from experience.

————

Ann Le Pere
"How should creativity be skilled ?" By teaching actual skills. All disciplines within the arts are hampered in creativity/communication if they don't give artists/poets/musicians/etc. the tools to work with and knowledge of the past. Personally speaking, I came hardwired as a realist painter. In the 60's I avoided a university art program realizing that abstract expressionism left me cold. Opting for the ability to actually earn a living, I got an elementary ed. degree from a small, rural liberal arts college in upstate NY. For "fun" I took as many drawing and painting classes, with the same teacher, as I could squeeze in. She taught me the principles of drawing and oil painting and is a friend to this day. What I didn't realize at the time is that I was also being taught by her teachers and their teachers and back and back. Wm. Merritt Chase influenced me without realizing it at the time. (I foolishly neglected to take art history and have been catching up ever since.)


Through a combination of workshops and experimentation, I have cobbled together an art education for myself. However, the visually inclined youth of today have a wide open menu from which to choose. You posed Studio, Liberal Arts and Apprenticeship systems. Surely no one avenue is right for all. Each has much to offer. While I now appreciate a variety of expressive disciplines, if I wanted serious training in the realist tradition of painting, I would have numerous educational opportunities available. There is an energetic, renewed interest in traditional painting disciplines as the basis for a career in art. An excellent site to roam around in is www.artrenewal.org The Art Renewal Center is a private, non-profit foundation that fosters the classical tradition in art. Be forewarned that "20th century modernism" receives passionately scathing criticism on this site. But recognizing that for their philosophical position, the site is rich with thousands of high quality images of art from the 1200's on. They also have extensive listings and info on ARC approved atelier and pre-atelier schools. These schools have been multiplying greatly over the past 20 years.
Promila Sen
As an artist and art educator, I would recommend the atelier, classes in
art history/museim visits, observation of nature, classes in a variety of
media and processes and a milieu of artists and teachers for a dialogue on
art as an inner vision and the creative process as a means of reaching it.

Doug Stuber
Is apprenticeship a better system? What about a reawakening of the
atelier system?
IN short, all ways are good. No training in the making of art can in any way prepare an artist for what they will experience inthe art world. For me, I was an apprentice for two years under Leo Garel. His notoraiety and deserved fame got me som super duper shows in new England and NYC but I wasn't even 20 yet. Once I moved away, I was unable to ever crack the NYC market again in any real way. Drat.

Tony Rivera
We, all beginning artist want to be recognized and aspire to make great art…yet there is a series of But…that we must give way to…

Humbling as it may be, all artist must allow for a beginning stage…a learning stage, where as much as we may want to make excemptions (for ourselves), we must accept that we may want to be original, but we do not know what originaliity and authentic art is. In my day, art schools were cranking out junior abstract expressionist, now they crank out 'contemporary/post modernist', ho-hum, a style does not make one an artist.

My first command to a beginning or aspiring artist would be set aside wanting to be original, and learn your craft…If you want to be a painter, spend atleast one year devoting yourself to acrylics, another to oils and yet another to watercolour. If a printmaker, learn relief prints, etching, lithography, screenprinting, etc. If a sculptor, learn clay, stone, wood, metal working…atleast a year to each medium..and so on for every medium. Why?

Because when you are ready to make art you will have the tools to choose from, that will be appropriate to your subject, theme or idea. But I need point out that art is not about ideas, because in any given hour of any day, we have dozens of ideas, 99.99% of which are garbage. The ideas that give impetus to art, are those that impress and impact themselves on our very lives, those ideas which we can not set aside. I recently read a disparaging remark, that older (meaning artist before the twenty-first century, were 'involved with making the same painting, over and over again,' which is shear nonesense…for what occurs infact is that an artist, as they mature finds more questions, or deeper levels of meaning in an idea that they still want to address and so to the poor ignorant and arrogant fellow that made that remark, there is a sense of repetition, when to a more discerning viewer, there is greater depth and meaning, enrichment. And learn your craft for indeed the greatest ideas are never expressible if the artist does not have the technical means to express them.

Secondly, set aside wanting to be original, because you still have no meaningful sense of what art can achieve because you have not had a varied exposure to art. Art is not one thing and one way…so study the whole history of art, go to galleries, go to museums, own art books, that cover the variety of artist that now interest you and those that only pique your interest…look to at the work of artist you don't like, but look. And while looking ask questions, why do I like this and not that? Why do I react so adversely to this type of work and not that? If you find an artist or style you like…as yourself why, is it because their subject matter or treatment is akin to your own interest, your own ideas, is it work like you would aspire to make someday? Ask yourself these questions and a multitude of others, what ever questions arise for you and and find within yourself answers to them…Only then will you begin to understand what art is and what you can do with it.
Between a knowledge of craft and and understanding of the nature and breadth of what art is, can you find a means to express yourself, your ideas, your originality.

And read…read everything, fiction, non-fiction, ppoetry, plays, newspapers-even the tabloids, and engage in conversations…(get away from the computer and go sit with friends) and talk about life and if it comes up, even art. For the very core of all art, is a reflection of life. And it is from living that your ideas and concerns as an artist, that need expression will come.

Being an artist, is a means of living in the world and dealing with it in a variety of ways, though it is not about all the silly romantic notions of self destruction, of living in poverty, drinking, drugs or anything else…or becoming famous when you are dead. It is about being responsible for your actions, your ideas and their expression…in every which way that you would meaningfully, respectfully want to be seen and known in the world. It is a way of being authentic…it is not about wanting to be modern or contemporary, it is about expressing what being a living contemporary is. Though we live in a world of change, ironically, as we age, mature as beings and artist, we come to realize that we need (more than merely want) stability and enduring things in our lives…amongst these is art as a very human value….so learn all you can

Andrea Gomez
Teach them to see; all the rest is commentary.

Ashylnn Browning
I went through undergraduate and graduate programs at fairly small North Carolina schools and all in all feel that I had very positive experiences. Because these schools had small art departments and because I proved my seriousness early on, I received a lot of attention and guidance from professors, which made all the difference. These mentors were more important to me than my peers at the time because I was more challenged and inspired by those with knowledge and mastery of skills, than those stumbling along beside me. Early on, it was my professors that pointed me to De Kooning, Twombly and Basquiat, opening my eyes and setting me on my own course. I am friends with those professors still today, and they continue to be valuable sources of advice and inspiration.

I majored in English alongside art, and this, coupled with a liberal arts curriculum, fed my work and probably continues to do so today in ways I don’t even fully recognize. Specifically, in college, the literature courses that I was taking were channeled into my work in very obvious ways, as were the books I was choosing to read on my own at the time (1984, Brave New World, Fountainhead.) The curriculum I went through was also very strong on providing students with writing and analytical skills, which are crucial to artists as they verbally address their work through lectures or constructing artist statements.

In my senior year, all art majors took a course on the business side of art and this was invaluable for getting practical information on artist statements, resumes, interviews, gallery and museums practices, as well as linking students with internships. This course did not tell me that I had such incredibly slim chances of ever “making it” as an artist, but then I wouldn’t have listened if it had.

I received a strong grounding in art history and I think that’s as important as or even more so than the actual technical training an artist receives (which, in my haste to get to the conceptual, experimental sides of art, I unwisely rushed through.) Art history gives you a framework and context for knowing what’s come before you, how your work fits in, and connects you with your art “kindred spirits.” Concurrently, I think it’s vital to keep up on the contemporary scene, being able to intelligently track the context and relevance of your work in the art world now.

Academic training aside, I think the real key to becoming an artist is diligence and a truly committed approach toward it, rather than the specific training one has. It’s that seriousness that’s going to carry an artist for the duration and keep him or her thinking and creating long after the class projects and deadlines are over. An art education can certainly provide one with skills, but it doesn’t necessarily impart the kind of dedication and passion that are the real marks of a lifelong artist.