return to worldwidereview.com,
the home of critical reviews
From: blp Category: Art Date: 04 June 2007 Time: 08:03 AM Review: I think you're reading too much into what I said, probably projecting your issues with your bad Ruskin tutor. Did I insist on life drawing as the royal road to anything? Nope. Just argued in favour of drawing from life (not the same as life drawing) as opposed to photos, as it's a more complex activity. And I said what I did partly because it's uncomfortably close to a conservative view, which is one of the things that keeps this debate stuck in the mud. Actually, I think the problem may partly be that the old traditions of drawing teaching weren't much cop - were boring and arbitrarily prescriptive and too limiting. You say the possibility that your tutor wasn't any good proves nothing, but it proves something to me. The good drawing teaching I had was irritating, but then there was a payoff and a very quick and exciting one. I'll reiterate - of course I know there's a lot more to art than this. What I'm objecting to is this situation now where you go to art school and are expected to start making art straight off without knowing anything and usually without being taught anything. We've gone from bad, prescriptive teaching to no teaching at all. Regardless of the end result, it's a boring, frustrating, wasteful way to spend three years and creates a lot of casualties. And, sure, there might be multiple ways of coming at it, but so what? You start somewhere - and what you're starting to do is show a kid other approaches from the ones they already know, not to say, no, this is the only right thing now, to instill prejudice, but to say there are other ways from the ones you know, and break down prejudice.