Elkin’s is a painter turned art historian. He believes that art is a broadly irrational practice and as a painter he claims that nobody really knows what they are actually doing in the art room. For him, art gives a unique and specialised way of knowing the world and engaging with it, without necessarily knowing anything about it.
Can art be taught?
In theory, for someone to teach art must be enthusiastic, committed and patient about it. People believe it can be taught but they don't really know how. Just like in any other practice, students can learn how to create art but not all of them can become outstanding artists. Researches show that many of the greatest artists have often dropped out of these kind of institutions. In addition to that, many might thing only mediocre art can be taught. I believe that as well. I think if someone wants to be a unique, outstanding artist must have the vision and the talent to deliver. You must feel the art, you must know what you want to produce out of it, know you way around it. Sure teaching can help you in some ways, but unless you have the talent and the vision, you can really become a great artist.
Students can be taught how to criticise, art theories and philosophies, techniques and how to get along in the art world but not really the art itself.
Historically, looking into the late 1700's-1800's, in the Romanticism era, they started to reject the constancy/steadiness of the art and they started to look for more special and unique qualities and particular talents.
"The Lady of Shalott", 1888, Oil Canvas, by John William Waterhouse
They also started to reject the art categories. They thought that art should be living and not something it should be divided. This had a lot of impact in contemporary art schools. Tutors needed to encourage student individuality instead of forcing them to fall into stylistic norms.
If there were no universal rules for art to be taught then there artists will have nothing in common.
No comments:
Post a Comment