Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, Kathryn A Rosenfeld wrote:
> Preserving a distinction between "artist" and "non-artist" seems to me to
> be along the same lines as preserving the high art/low art dichotomy. It
> doesn't seem very useful, or very relevant to most people's lives,
> especially those of students. Haven't humans always created? To me, it
> is an instinct, not an acquired profession or an inborn talent. This is
> not to romanticize the notion of creativity - I agree that generally one
> isn't "born with talent." I always considered myself an aritist because
> I had the desire and drive to make art, because it was important to me
> and I was engaged in a thought process with it most of the time. Then I
> found out that I didn't live up to a lot of the criteria the "real art
> world" holds for designating someone an artist. That's when I decided to
> teach instead of try to attain to a standard that seemed completely
> contrived and useless to me. Isn't our idea of "the artist" as a
> rarified being in society a pretty recent one, dictated mostly by Western
> and relatively modern constructs like "the art market?" In any case, it
> doesn't seem useful for art students in K-12, unless perhaps for a gifted
> class.
>
>
> Kathy
>
> rosenfka.edu "ART IS NOT OPTIONAL"
> University of Cincinnati - Art Education -printed on rock
> outside the Art
> Academy of Cincinnati
>
>