There was a time, a few hundred years ago, when being wealthy meant that you were smart, because you were well educated. For women, this education included the fundamentals of art: knowing how to draw and paint, especially. The poorer folk certainly wouldn't have time to spend painting or sketching, so it seems logical that only the rich could engage in that luxury.
Now, however, it seems that the concept of an artist has morphed into an image of a starving Parisian who can barely make a living, but is somehow a creative genius at the same time.
Is art a science, something that can be taught? Pull the brush across the paper this way, and you're good? Can you buy intelligence?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think that art is 100% a science that can be taught, but I definitely think that before anything else come the fundamentals. There isn't one specific thing to do that will make you a good artist, but there are techniques that will help.
ReplyDeleteWhile I always enjoyed art as a child, I never really knew how to work with my creativity and talent until I started taking classes. It seems like every class I take, the more I learn about what I'm capable of and good at.
Of course there's always those artists that can make incredible art with no formal training, guidance or supplies (the ones we're all jealous of), but that's pretty rare and just because you don't have all the natural talent in the world doesn't mean that you can't work with what you do have.
I guess it's all about (like Mr. Bolos has said) where you life- your socio-economic status. High schools with more money to put into the arts will of course have more students that can learn techniques like we do in the art classes at New Trier.