What is the point of art school?
Jun. 7th, 2020 07:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithRelating to "The Wolf of the Galleries," I want to expand on some things.
I had known that Adolf Hitler was an artist and got rejected from art school (specifically The Academy of Fine Arts Vienna, which detail I hadn't recalled), but I learned two things in the course of researching this poem: 1) he was surprisingly good at it, and 2) precisely why he got rejected.
Let me just make a quick analysis of paintings featured on the Wikipedia page. My credentials include: I am a liberal arts graduate, a previous teacher of art appreciation classes online, a hobby art collector, an art fan, a hobby-linguist interested in artistic vocabulary, a writer of artist characters, and what I have of art talent in this life consists of an eye for color and composition but creation of crafts rather than paintings.
Vienna State Opera House, Adolf Hitler, 1912
Things I typically look for in a painting:
Nature? No
Manmade structures? Yes, a building.
Plants? No
Animals? Yes, a horse.
People? Yes, lots.
Foreground, midground, background? Yes.
How accurate is the building? Quite precise and beautifully detailed; the repeating arches are especially nice. Also look at the tiny little legs of the horse statues and the spirals on the lampposts.
Historic or cultural interest? Lots. Not only do we have that detailed building, there are vivid gender differences in clothing, a trolley, and a horse pulling a vehicle that is not a passenger carriage because it's solid so probably a cargo container of some sort.
Do the people include a mix of race, sex, age, ability, etc.? Yes. One man uses a walking stick. There are at least 2 women, whose dresses provide bright spots of color.
Use of color and lighting? Overall, a decent use of lighting in a relatively low-contrast painting, but the dresses do stand out nicely. However, I am most charmed by something most people probably can't see: the yellow-gray. I can see blue and yellow tones together, which is supposed to be impossible, and Celtic lore mentions a yellow-gray color. That painting is just dancing with all different shades of sandy yellows, grays, and blues. I really like that because it's rare to see.
Scene selection and framing? Excellent. The building has tons of detail, its front is offset from the center to provide tension, and the pedestrians add interest.
So on a technical level, it's competent and interesting. It doesn't have common glaring errors like skewed arches or disproportionate anatomy. It uses a number of common artistic motifs and techniques. Whether that makes it aesthetically appealing is a matter of personal taste.
Tree at a track by Adolf Hitler, 1911
This picture of trees has dark and muddy colors, not much at first glance. However, it has two very common artistic motifs: a path going somewhere, and a bright spot in an otherwise dark composition.
The composition reminds me of Bob Ross: looming trees (every tree needs a friend), a path, and a brighter spot in the distance. Indeed, that contrast of dark and light is fundamental to art.
Now look closer at the trees themselves: are they happy or sad? Actually, a bit of both: the branches droop down but the very tips curl up. So they're ambivalent little trees. That's interesting, and unusual in art, but some evergreens really do that.
Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ in 1913 by Adolf Hitler
This is pretty standard religious iconography: Mary in her blue robe with baby Jesus. One interesting variation is they're sitting in a field rather than an audience of adoring whomevers. Of all those flowers, I can identify daisies, so let's look up the symbolism. Christian: Virgin Mary; Norse: motherhood and childbirth. The daisies are accurately connected with the theme. The figures don't have halos, but the descending sunbeams are a ubiquitous motif in iconography. They are decently rendered human figures, although they follow the trend of whitewashing. (Jesus would not have been blond.) So the artist was capable of painting portraits when he felt like it.
Note that most artists develop a preference based on what they enjoy and do well. They tend to settle into portraits, landscapes, abstracts, or whatever. Some do many different types of art, but it's not very common, because the techniques are a bit different and you build skill by repetition. Hitler did a decent job at several very different types of art.
Let's move on to why Hitler got rejected. In general, it was said that he wasn't good enough. In particular, the complaint was "too few heads." What the actual FUCK, art people? If you want heads, assign heads. If you don't assign heads, don't complain about the number of heads. You might get lots or some or none.
Consider the importance and ethics of detailing guidelines. If you are a selector -- admissions officer, magazine editor, etc. -- then you have a responsibility to your applicants or other submitters to give them clear instructions about what you do or don't want. (Many of them will skip or ignore your guidelines; you are free to reject all of those as soon as you spot them in violation of your parameters.) What you may not do is expect people to read your mind. If you do not detail your expectations, people are free to send whatever they wish. You may or may not like it. You can pick whatever you do like. But it is unfair and obnoxious -- extending to fraudulent if the guidelines describe or imply a "free choice" of submissions -- to apply unwritten guidelines. So then, a reasonable set of portfolio guidelines in this regard might be "X heads, Y landscapes, Z abstracts or others." Typically they also specify a size range and combination of media, if the media are not diverged across different assessors.
Most writer's guidelines suck. I extrapolate that artist's guidelines are even worse, since they are likely to be written by visual rather than verbal people. Many people have complained that art school admission is unfair and biased. But here's a case where it didn't just ruin one person's life, it ruined everyone's life. Gee thanks, pretentious art twats.
Bad art teachers, and here I include biased admissions officers, do a number of terrible things. This includes despising and attacking specific styles, genres, subjects, etc. of art and/or artists of disadvantaged groups. The impression left by Hitler's rejection is that they thought art of human subjects was "good" and art of buildings was "bad" -- that drawing buildings made someone not a Real Artist but rather a lowly architectural illustrator. (I feel sorry for the poor bastards who actually got into the architectural school. Imagine how much abuse they must have endured.)
The art world has a serious problem of suppressing some styles of art and types of artist while favoring others. Women were explicitly banned for years, they are still cheated of equal pay, and primarily feminine arts such as china painting or quilting are denied recognition as fine art. Artists of color experience similar barriers. It's important to fight for women, black, and other marginalized artists. The art world has a long, ugly history of shutting people out because it thinks they're not "good enough." Just the details vary. It's a problem because rejection hurts people, and hurt people hurt people. So a high rate of rejection in the art world is doing a lot of damage, which the rest of us then have to live with.
That raises a question about the false scarcity of art and education. Why not just let everyone into art school, or other college? If the customer (student or parents) is paying, they should be free to purchase whatever education they want and can afford. (If the state is paying, they may reasonably set requirements, but are obligated to be unbiased in applying those.) The art world has a pernicious habit of manufacturing scarcity to make itself seem more "important." If only a few people are permitted to attend art school, or other school, then the lucky few get to feel "special." When art is scarce, it costs more, so only the richer people can afford it. Modern technology makes reproductions affordable, but people are mocked for decorating with posters.
Conversely, some other cultures have democratized art; everyone did it. Native Americans painted their tipis, their horses, themselves, everything. When you create art and you move through a world full of art, it changes your worldview. Consider the Navajo/Diné prayer "The Beauty Way." Beautiful art improves health. So a society of artists tends to more pleasant as well as prettier.
This relates to life purpose -- Hitler described himself as an artist rather than a politician. Without a purpose, people feel lost and worthless. They suffer purpose anxiety. Being blocked from fulfillment is ruinous to health and sanity.
In the case of art school issues, all this throttling of creativity and potential can ruin students' creativity and lives. And it put Hitler in charge of WWII. No matter how bad some people think his art was, the world would have been infinitely better off had he stayed an artist instead of becoming a politician. That's the kind of power that admissions officers have, but they don't think about it, and that is a problem.
Admissions suggested that Hitler try architecture school instead of art school -- but that one would have required more education than he already had, since he dropped out of school because it was horrid. Now, today we have an increasing problem of remedial and other prerequisite classes shutting students out of college. But that historic example fucked up the whole world. Let's not do that again. Really, a when young people start seeing the system itself as a problem, and they are forcibly prevented from investing in it, they are quite likely to tear it down if they can. The more of them there are, the more likely one will succeed.
It is rarely if ever possible to know who will become a genocidal maniac. However, it is widely known that cutting people out of education tends to derail their lives. In general, less education correlates with more crime and vice versa. So the more education, the better.
But what if he had gotten into art school? History would look very different. Certainly a career as an art student and later artist is largely incompatible with what he wound up doing. While he was painting, he wasn't ranting about divisive politics. Also, art schools are full of freaks. Artists are weird; even if you try to minimize the weirdness, you can't remove it all without also removing all the art. There's an overlap between art and mental issues. So as an art student, Hitler would have met many different people and that might have widened his worldview enough to divert him from the idea of mass murder as a viable solution to problems.
What is the point of an art school anyway? It is not, or should not be, merely to produce "great art" or "commercial art." It's about supporting the diversity of art, and especially, about broadening student minds. If some styles of art or types of artist are excluded, then the field itself shrinks and thereby suffers. Furthermore, look at the tendency to require high-quality portfolios before students are admitted. If people can already make good art, what the hell do they need an expensive education for? Then it's largely about prestige. Also, you go to school to learn new things, not be retold things you can already do well. This is why so many people say art school is a scam.
But if the art school has no requirement of entry skills, then again, what's the point? Well, what is art for? Why do people even make art? There are many reasons. If the art school privileges one or a few over others, which is typical, that's a problem. If you can afford a college education, and you're not concerned about a paying job, there's no reason not to do it just for the hell of it and art is a great choice because it touches on so many other things. Better still if you find an art college within a larger university with a wider "liberal arts" curriculum. That's actually job-relevant anywhere that doesn't care what your degree is, only that you have one. Is art school only for the would-be commercial artist? Don't say that to the arteests, they will freak the fuck out. Is art to be done For The Art? If so, it should be open to everyone.
Most importantly from a perspective of social engineering: it is vastly better to have people doing something positive they are bad at than doing something negative they are appallingly good at. I say this as a student of history and human nature ... and someone who has designed prison classes. Seriously, let people "waste" time in art school if it keeps them out of trouble. So what if they draw creepy pictures of piles of skulls? It's better than making actual skulls.
This art school chicanery can ruin students' creativity and lives. And it put Hitler in charge of WWII. No matter how bad some people think his art was, the world would have been infinitely better off had he stayed an artist instead of becoming a politician. That's the kind of power that admissions officers have, but they don't think about it, and that is a problem.
I had known that Adolf Hitler was an artist and got rejected from art school (specifically The Academy of Fine Arts Vienna, which detail I hadn't recalled), but I learned two things in the course of researching this poem: 1) he was surprisingly good at it, and 2) precisely why he got rejected.
Let me just make a quick analysis of paintings featured on the Wikipedia page. My credentials include: I am a liberal arts graduate, a previous teacher of art appreciation classes online, a hobby art collector, an art fan, a hobby-linguist interested in artistic vocabulary, a writer of artist characters, and what I have of art talent in this life consists of an eye for color and composition but creation of crafts rather than paintings.
Vienna State Opera House, Adolf Hitler, 1912
Things I typically look for in a painting:
Nature? No
Manmade structures? Yes, a building.
Plants? No
Animals? Yes, a horse.
People? Yes, lots.
Foreground, midground, background? Yes.
How accurate is the building? Quite precise and beautifully detailed; the repeating arches are especially nice. Also look at the tiny little legs of the horse statues and the spirals on the lampposts.
Historic or cultural interest? Lots. Not only do we have that detailed building, there are vivid gender differences in clothing, a trolley, and a horse pulling a vehicle that is not a passenger carriage because it's solid so probably a cargo container of some sort.
Do the people include a mix of race, sex, age, ability, etc.? Yes. One man uses a walking stick. There are at least 2 women, whose dresses provide bright spots of color.
Use of color and lighting? Overall, a decent use of lighting in a relatively low-contrast painting, but the dresses do stand out nicely. However, I am most charmed by something most people probably can't see: the yellow-gray. I can see blue and yellow tones together, which is supposed to be impossible, and Celtic lore mentions a yellow-gray color. That painting is just dancing with all different shades of sandy yellows, grays, and blues. I really like that because it's rare to see.
Scene selection and framing? Excellent. The building has tons of detail, its front is offset from the center to provide tension, and the pedestrians add interest.
So on a technical level, it's competent and interesting. It doesn't have common glaring errors like skewed arches or disproportionate anatomy. It uses a number of common artistic motifs and techniques. Whether that makes it aesthetically appealing is a matter of personal taste.
Tree at a track by Adolf Hitler, 1911
This picture of trees has dark and muddy colors, not much at first glance. However, it has two very common artistic motifs: a path going somewhere, and a bright spot in an otherwise dark composition.
The composition reminds me of Bob Ross: looming trees (every tree needs a friend), a path, and a brighter spot in the distance. Indeed, that contrast of dark and light is fundamental to art.
Now look closer at the trees themselves: are they happy or sad? Actually, a bit of both: the branches droop down but the very tips curl up. So they're ambivalent little trees. That's interesting, and unusual in art, but some evergreens really do that.
Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ in 1913 by Adolf Hitler
This is pretty standard religious iconography: Mary in her blue robe with baby Jesus. One interesting variation is they're sitting in a field rather than an audience of adoring whomevers. Of all those flowers, I can identify daisies, so let's look up the symbolism. Christian: Virgin Mary; Norse: motherhood and childbirth. The daisies are accurately connected with the theme. The figures don't have halos, but the descending sunbeams are a ubiquitous motif in iconography. They are decently rendered human figures, although they follow the trend of whitewashing. (Jesus would not have been blond.) So the artist was capable of painting portraits when he felt like it.
Note that most artists develop a preference based on what they enjoy and do well. They tend to settle into portraits, landscapes, abstracts, or whatever. Some do many different types of art, but it's not very common, because the techniques are a bit different and you build skill by repetition. Hitler did a decent job at several very different types of art.
Let's move on to why Hitler got rejected. In general, it was said that he wasn't good enough. In particular, the complaint was "too few heads." What the actual FUCK, art people? If you want heads, assign heads. If you don't assign heads, don't complain about the number of heads. You might get lots or some or none.
Consider the importance and ethics of detailing guidelines. If you are a selector -- admissions officer, magazine editor, etc. -- then you have a responsibility to your applicants or other submitters to give them clear instructions about what you do or don't want. (Many of them will skip or ignore your guidelines; you are free to reject all of those as soon as you spot them in violation of your parameters.) What you may not do is expect people to read your mind. If you do not detail your expectations, people are free to send whatever they wish. You may or may not like it. You can pick whatever you do like. But it is unfair and obnoxious -- extending to fraudulent if the guidelines describe or imply a "free choice" of submissions -- to apply unwritten guidelines. So then, a reasonable set of portfolio guidelines in this regard might be "X heads, Y landscapes, Z abstracts or others." Typically they also specify a size range and combination of media, if the media are not diverged across different assessors.
Most writer's guidelines suck. I extrapolate that artist's guidelines are even worse, since they are likely to be written by visual rather than verbal people. Many people have complained that art school admission is unfair and biased. But here's a case where it didn't just ruin one person's life, it ruined everyone's life. Gee thanks, pretentious art twats.
Bad art teachers, and here I include biased admissions officers, do a number of terrible things. This includes despising and attacking specific styles, genres, subjects, etc. of art and/or artists of disadvantaged groups. The impression left by Hitler's rejection is that they thought art of human subjects was "good" and art of buildings was "bad" -- that drawing buildings made someone not a Real Artist but rather a lowly architectural illustrator. (I feel sorry for the poor bastards who actually got into the architectural school. Imagine how much abuse they must have endured.)
The art world has a serious problem of suppressing some styles of art and types of artist while favoring others. Women were explicitly banned for years, they are still cheated of equal pay, and primarily feminine arts such as china painting or quilting are denied recognition as fine art. Artists of color experience similar barriers. It's important to fight for women, black, and other marginalized artists. The art world has a long, ugly history of shutting people out because it thinks they're not "good enough." Just the details vary. It's a problem because rejection hurts people, and hurt people hurt people. So a high rate of rejection in the art world is doing a lot of damage, which the rest of us then have to live with.
That raises a question about the false scarcity of art and education. Why not just let everyone into art school, or other college? If the customer (student or parents) is paying, they should be free to purchase whatever education they want and can afford. (If the state is paying, they may reasonably set requirements, but are obligated to be unbiased in applying those.) The art world has a pernicious habit of manufacturing scarcity to make itself seem more "important." If only a few people are permitted to attend art school, or other school, then the lucky few get to feel "special." When art is scarce, it costs more, so only the richer people can afford it. Modern technology makes reproductions affordable, but people are mocked for decorating with posters.
Conversely, some other cultures have democratized art; everyone did it. Native Americans painted their tipis, their horses, themselves, everything. When you create art and you move through a world full of art, it changes your worldview. Consider the Navajo/Diné prayer "The Beauty Way." Beautiful art improves health. So a society of artists tends to more pleasant as well as prettier.
This relates to life purpose -- Hitler described himself as an artist rather than a politician. Without a purpose, people feel lost and worthless. They suffer purpose anxiety. Being blocked from fulfillment is ruinous to health and sanity.
In the case of art school issues, all this throttling of creativity and potential can ruin students' creativity and lives. And it put Hitler in charge of WWII. No matter how bad some people think his art was, the world would have been infinitely better off had he stayed an artist instead of becoming a politician. That's the kind of power that admissions officers have, but they don't think about it, and that is a problem.
Admissions suggested that Hitler try architecture school instead of art school -- but that one would have required more education than he already had, since he dropped out of school because it was horrid. Now, today we have an increasing problem of remedial and other prerequisite classes shutting students out of college. But that historic example fucked up the whole world. Let's not do that again. Really, a when young people start seeing the system itself as a problem, and they are forcibly prevented from investing in it, they are quite likely to tear it down if they can. The more of them there are, the more likely one will succeed.
It is rarely if ever possible to know who will become a genocidal maniac. However, it is widely known that cutting people out of education tends to derail their lives. In general, less education correlates with more crime and vice versa. So the more education, the better.
But what if he had gotten into art school? History would look very different. Certainly a career as an art student and later artist is largely incompatible with what he wound up doing. While he was painting, he wasn't ranting about divisive politics. Also, art schools are full of freaks. Artists are weird; even if you try to minimize the weirdness, you can't remove it all without also removing all the art. There's an overlap between art and mental issues. So as an art student, Hitler would have met many different people and that might have widened his worldview enough to divert him from the idea of mass murder as a viable solution to problems.
What is the point of an art school anyway? It is not, or should not be, merely to produce "great art" or "commercial art." It's about supporting the diversity of art, and especially, about broadening student minds. If some styles of art or types of artist are excluded, then the field itself shrinks and thereby suffers. Furthermore, look at the tendency to require high-quality portfolios before students are admitted. If people can already make good art, what the hell do they need an expensive education for? Then it's largely about prestige. Also, you go to school to learn new things, not be retold things you can already do well. This is why so many people say art school is a scam.
But if the art school has no requirement of entry skills, then again, what's the point? Well, what is art for? Why do people even make art? There are many reasons. If the art school privileges one or a few over others, which is typical, that's a problem. If you can afford a college education, and you're not concerned about a paying job, there's no reason not to do it just for the hell of it and art is a great choice because it touches on so many other things. Better still if you find an art college within a larger university with a wider "liberal arts" curriculum. That's actually job-relevant anywhere that doesn't care what your degree is, only that you have one. Is art school only for the would-be commercial artist? Don't say that to the arteests, they will freak the fuck out. Is art to be done For The Art? If so, it should be open to everyone.
Most importantly from a perspective of social engineering: it is vastly better to have people doing something positive they are bad at than doing something negative they are appallingly good at. I say this as a student of history and human nature ... and someone who has designed prison classes. Seriously, let people "waste" time in art school if it keeps them out of trouble. So what if they draw creepy pictures of piles of skulls? It's better than making actual skulls.
This art school chicanery can ruin students' creativity and lives. And it put Hitler in charge of WWII. No matter how bad some people think his art was, the world would have been infinitely better off had he stayed an artist instead of becoming a politician. That's the kind of power that admissions officers have, but they don't think about it, and that is a problem.
