Fine Art is that avenue which many of us imagine will equip us with the skills posessed by the painters and sculptors we see in art galleries or history books. We choose Fine Art becuase of a love of image-making and a personal vision which seeks expression.
In contemporary art schools, drawing is seriously undervalued , often taught as a passing nod to tradition, sandwiched into the 'more relevant' philosophical issues of contemporary art theory. Artists who choose realism are often left to expore their chosen route on their own, taking the odd private class and researching the old masters, wasting hours re-inventing the wheel as they struggle to learn. The occasional art-school graduate with a natural eye and an able teacher might be fortunate enough to independantly develop the expressive and technical skills needed to create a worthwile work of art, while the rest fall by the wayside. Is it really that drawing is no longer relevant, or can art teachers simply no longer draw, let alone teach drawing?
Some might argue that there is no longer a market for this type of skill, but Thane Peterson writes in Business Week online that: 'Artistic skills also are in far more demand than most people imagine. Bill Barrett recalls a recent visit to Pixar, the movie animation company near San Francisco, with a group of art school presidents. One of the presidents, of course, asked Edwin Catmull, the company's president and chief technology officer, what qualities he looks for when hiring recent college grads. Catmull surprised the academics, Barrett recalls, by replying: "We look for people with incredible drawing skills." Much of the early work on a film, Catmull explained, is done on paper, not on a computer, so an ability to draw is crucial. '(my emphasis).
Despite this, Paul Reader even makes the dubious proposition, based on a handful of interviews, that "The making of art, and the process of critique used in art school are very powerful tools for personal development. The idea that art schools have a responsibility to an art industry, or to vocational training, job-creation, and the making of practising artists is a very dubious proposition. The real work for visual art educators, is about people creation, stimulating creative thinking, and broadening horizons." This type of rhetoric is typical of art schools and theorists seeking to justify their own existance. Can we blame them, when they are forced to take highschool grads untrained in the basic skills of art, keeping numbers up to maintain funding and keep their jobs? Look at any arts faculty page and you'll find them citing a conglomeration of non-specific employment aptitudes - you'll be valued for your lateral thinking, indeed.
Research indicates that less than 5 percent of Fine Art students will be making art 10 years after they graduate. If that was said of engineering or science there would be an outcry - what a waste of education resources and years of study. Less than a century ago, artists were able to support themselves as illustrators, portraitists and decorators until they 'made their mark', spending their time in a creative environment, and using their training.
Art graduates are now emerging poorly equiped for their chosen field of endeavor, even in terms of their own artistic expression, forced to choose abstraction when lack of training denys them the choice of realism. now most graduates find themsemselves unemployed and unable to afford art supplies for their increasingly directionless art, or their energy sapped by hours of unskilled labor. Until there is serious reform of institutionalised art education, generations of artists will find that their ambitions are a not-so-funny joke.
"Q: What did the art graduate say to the engineering graduate? A: Would you like fries with that order sir?"
