mwfoley wrote: > > The use of the word "Artist" is what is confusing... you're > training of students to be shills for some advertising > concern doesn't entitle them to the credibility of artists > who have sacrificed comfort and security to remain able to > examine and criticise our visual world. So they only need to > deal with dead lines in order to wear a bit in their mouths > so that their boss' will be able to jerk their heads around > and direct them toward what they should be interested in. > If that's what makes teaching valuable to you, then you've missed > the point of Art and Teaching. Students must learn to resist > the temptation to be led into submission. Someone must > maintain the ability to see clearly and it obviously won't > be your well behaved "A" students. The difference between > reacting to visual stimuli and actually creating something is > staggering to those who can tell the difference and invisable > to those who can not. Get creative in your teaching. Art that > does not resist oppresion is part of that oppression.
DiVinnci and Michaelangelo both worked with a "bit in their mouths". You
might say that they were actually commercial artists. Being a starving
artist does not make you a better artist nor does it mean you will be
"truer" to your vision and art. It might only mean that you are hungry
I agree with much of what you say here but in teaching art, specially to
high school students and undergraduates you must be open enough to reach
the needs of all the students, both the aspiring "starving artist" who
will work from a deep personal perspective; and the talented student who
wants to do art as a business. In fact a solid art education program
should be actively reaching out to the "non-art" student population,
school personnel and the community in general to expose them to the
appreciation of art in their everyday lives, including fine art.