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.

Lesson Plans


Re: critiques and faculty change

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
kprs (kprs)
Sat, 28 Sep 1996 22:36:34 -0700


Sidnie Miller wrote:
>
> Speaking of faculty change--I would like to hear some comments about this
> question. The University of Nevada is the college that I have had most
> connection with lately, but it seems to me that college art instructors
> have a giant prejudice against anything pretty. If you want a good review
> or critique--your work had better be fairly violent and should contain a
> liberal amount of vaginas and penises. I'm trying to decide if this is a
> college thing or if professors just encourage it by making fun of anyone
> who persues " pretty" art as being trite. I think there is a prejudice
> that unless college art is shocking and sort of a break from their moral,
> goody-goody high school experience--it isn't art. What do you think??Sid
>
> ###########################
> # Sidnie Miller #
> # Elko Junior High School #
> # 777 Country Club Drive #
> # Elko, NV 89801 #
> # 702-738-7236 #
> ###########################

Hi Sid:
My experience lies with the East Coast art schools, and they seem to
value "truth" in art, and if your "truth" lies with pretty then prove
it. Most of the eternal "truths" lie with the "not so pretty",
i.e.hunger, violence, death, love, pride, anger, etc. My point is,
somewhere along the line there was a separation made between portraits,
still life, and beautiful renderings, and expressionistic,
observational, and methaphorical representations. Are they exclusive?
Inclusive? Who can say. Is there snobism, elitism, and intellectualism
associated with both sides of the line, absolutely. One thing though, we
are all part of the same family, a long stretched line that goes all the
way back to the caves, where the first man "captured" the bison, and
that was his "truth", but was it beauty?

San D