Good for you Carol. I agree with you completely. Very well said.
> I am an art teacher. I am not an artist, but I think I am a far better
> teacher than a couple of "real" artists that I took classes from in my
> undergraduate days and from some that I have observed teaching. I paint in
> and oils, did pretty well in a portrait class with Daniel Green (a great
> artist/teacher), and I feel that I could be a fairly competent artist if I
> to be, but obviously I don't.
> Some of us are more interested in collecting and learning about different
> cultures and mastering new techniques. I think we make a valid contribution
> to art education. Do art historians need to be practicing artists? There
> many art historians who are good or even great art teachers. Does it make
> sense to say that sculptors need to master oil painting, or metal sculptors
> to master stonecutting? It makes no more sense to me to say that we should
> all be practicing artists because art education encompasses far too much.
> Most of the art we recognize in history was not created as "art" but as
> a means to record information, tell a story, record an image for posterity,
> worship a deity, act as a computer or calendar, or provide some utilitarian
> function. Art can be mathematics, architecture, engineering, philosophy,
> history, journalism, medicine entertainment, the list is endless. Art has
> been all
> of those things and I doubt that all of the artists thought of themselves as
> For those of you who are practicing artists, you have much to share but
> be careful that you do not exclude those who do not share your vision. Art
> like a well cut diamond has many facets, and you may be just seeing one.
> Clio, SC
> To unsubscribe go to
To unsubscribe go to