In a comment on a recent post about perception and art, Ben claims the following...
"Why teach art classes if art is subjective? I don't need an art class to be an artist, is what we're saying. Is that what we are saying? Is art education pointless?"
In the same line of thinking... many argue that one is a writer if one writes.
If this is the case, can one be a writer without taking writing classes as it is suggested about artists? Or do you believe that neither is the case?
What do you think? Justify...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think that it all depends on the connotation you give to the words "artist" or "writer". On one level, they simply describe what a person is doing. By this definition, it is possible for anyone to be considered an "artist" or a "writer", regardless of their experience. However, if we specify that an "artist" or a "writer" produces works that appeal to the general public and meet some sort of standard, then those words have a completely different connotation, and as such, the question is completely different.
I also think that it is possible to be considered an artist or writer (by the latter connotation) without having taken any classes. There are cases of genius that occur all the time, all over the world.
I agree, but I think that even if cases of artistic genius, (im including writing as an artistic area here), but art education teaches you the conventions of the medium.
For those who are not naturally gifted, art classes help to not only develop art skills, but also enough of a background so that you can talk about art on an intellectual level.
Post a Comment