Very few schools can hire professional draftspeople, painters,
ceramists, printmakers, photographers, textile artists, sculptors, art
historians, art critics, or aestheticians to teach each of these
subjects, not to mention the fact that many of them might not make very
good teachers. I, on the other hand, have taught ALL these things, at
varying degrees of proficiency. I had no sculpture background, yet I
felt it was important to expose my students to it, so I taught it the
best I could each semester. Would Alan Houser or Luis Jimenez or Louise
Nevelson done a better job teaching my students? Possibly, but they
weren't available--or affordable. In a perfect world, art teachers
would be experienced and skillful in every medium possible; in the real
world, we do the best we can because we think it's important.
P.S. When responding to something in the digest, please delete all
parts of it that are not relevant to the discussion.
>Subject: the job is mine
>I have read your posts and I am glad that you are going to do what is
>necessary to teach ceramics, however, there is a lot of pressure on art
>programs to cut costs, inadvertently, not giving art education the status
>and prominence that it should as part of the core curriculum. I would have
>much preferred the school hire a professional artist and teacher. I am a
>studio artist and a secondary art teacher, I take my art very seriously. Art
>should not just feel good but it should also prepare students to move onto
>numerous professional fields that benefit from strong art backgrounds.
>Ceramics is a technical subject and should be taught by a ceramic artist. In
>spirit, I support you, and who knows, maybe there is a ceramic artist
>waiting to be born inside of you. I just think that when administrators hire
>non-artists in general, we/they are doing a disservice to art education and
>not taking it seriously. Thanks for reading.