Posted on 05/22/2006 8:44:14 AM PDT by Republicanprofessor
That's what really bothers me. He wasn't anxious to be freed, as he was "innocent," but all the attention "his" art caused him to want to stay in prison as long as possible.
Such lies perpetuated in the name of "art." I can't stand it.
We are certainly in agreement there! What is your comment on the 'rubber chicken' as 'art' display?
I'm getting as sick of all that empty, shocking work as everyone else.
love his stuff - reminds me I have a book of his illustrations around here somewhere - will have to dig it out.
The destruction of art in our country was one of the points of the Communists Party's plan to destroy our society - along with music, education - etc. I'm old enough to remember Khrushchev banging his shoe on the UN podium back in 1960; "We will bury you within 50 years and we will not have to fire a bullet!"
I, also, write - tho' retired great-granny now and mostly just maintain my column (18 years now).
This is one of my silverpoints - I really like the medium:
But there are still some good museums. One of my favorite art museums, that I use to haunt when I lived in the Berkshires, is the Clark Art Institute in Williamstown.
Went back for a visit a few years ago and was heartened to see that it still is feast for the eyes and the spirit - and so are the grounds!
The best thing about the Guggenheim, to me, is the building -
I think this film had a few good laughs and a lot of wasted potential. Art school is ripe with characters and strange situations but I dont remember a single strangler. The movie did remind me of all those years drawing naked people.
"A naked woman is like an apple" one professor told me. What the hell does that mean?
I have long thought the best art education is one part therapy and two parts benign neglect.
That is beautiful.
The desire for forbidden fruit has been the ruin of many.
Zwigoff had a lot to live up to in the black comedy department when his last film was Bad Santa. Kind of sad to hear that he didn't make it.
His school had/has a good foundational/basics class, and it has held him well with job interviews and positions.
Also, he found his own recognizable style, without resorting to weird stuff.
Where did he go to school. My teenager is quite adept at that stuff, and would love to know a recommendation.
you have mail
The art schools that I've taken classes at, UM, and more recently, MDC (which does the best job, having a prof who is actually series about it) and FIU offer, but don't teach the basics, and I do believe that to be fairly typical, from conversations with others, including even others from foreign countries at Wetcanvas. I'm sure there are exceptions, though, after all, there are people out there who clearly have mastered them.
The schools whose names I mentioned actually do offer, and even require as prerquisites, the basic courses, they do have classes in basic drawing, basic painting, figure drawing from life, etc. It's just that not very much is taught in those courses, in part because the professors themselves don't have the skills, in part I suppose because skills are not highly valued by university art departments. I told the figure drawing prof at FIU a couple years ago that my goal was to draw accurately, to which he philosophically rather than practically replied, "What is accuracy?" The fact is that there are specific techniques for acheiving accuracy, but you weren't going to learn them there, and probably not in most university level drawing classes. And of course, learning them isn't enough in itself, you have to practice them alot to really understand them, something specifically not encouraged. I'm forgetting that many years ago I took a few art classes at UNC where I was informed that students working in realism were not normally considered.
I guess that this attitude began with the rebellion against the academy and found new life with the art world's fixation on leftist politics. But as I always say, the goal of artists ought to be to create something timeless rather than something cutting edge.
One thing that I found interesting is that regarding the classes I took at the three institutions, MDC, FIU and UM, the less prestigious that school, the better the art that was being produced. MDC, the community college, had younger kids, and they were making strikingly better art than the kids at the other 2 schools. There were some very young kids there with some real talent - something that may very well be repressed once they enroll in "real" art schools.
But in sum, it is still a strange thing that the modern "academy" has made such a point of abandoning skill, which in my mind is one of the basic qualities of art.
I also have the idea that most of the students who sign up as art majors aren't too serious about the subject in the first place, the field probably seems to them more like something fun and interesting, a way to get through college. Not having to learn real skills is kind of a plus for them, they get to avoid the truly hard and time consuming work of actually mastering those skills.
OTOH, those students who really have a fire burning in them get screwed, there's not too much there for them, and excellence is discouraged anyway.
In the "hard" fields like engineering, pre med, chemistry, etc. students have to actually master the subject. My opinion is that while art is certainly subjective and interpretive, it too has techniques to master that are every bit as "hard" as those pertaining to the sciences. Or to music, for that matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.