I think art programs have changed drastically because of the computer ... which makes kids think that they can produce something, because they can make it on the computer. But it's not the same as really making something. They tend to have poor motor skills as a result.
I haven't talked to him personally about this personally - the quote was in an alumni newsletter my school sends out. I think it's fascinating though. What does this mean for the art 20 to 30 years from now? Do you think it matters? Or will talented artists emerge regardless of whether they develop good motor skills when they're young?
Apologies if this is something people in the art world talk about all the time... This was the first I'd heard of it.
6 comments:
I can see what he's getting at, but I don't think I can agree. The computer may make things faster, but I think the essence of producing student art is unchanged--it's still about having the skill and judgment to make an image that accomplishes a set of goals. Whether the skill is fine motor or programming really shouldn't matter, as far as I'm concerned.
The motor skills comment is bizarre, in fact. I wonder if his approach is similar to that of many other "arts and crafts" teachers, more concerned with creating an effective factory worker than a thoughtful cultural producer.
My stance betrays a very western, post-modern concept of art, of course. Also, I find myself much more able to draw on the computer than on paper. Maybe if paper had multiple undos.
Motor skills sounds like a weird bias to me, too, and a blatant jab against artists with Parkinsons and paraplegics who have to paint with their toes. Not cool, dude.
Maybe what he's really getting at is that he thinks it's too easy to make things look good now, and that he's worried art students won't care about refining their theory and technical expertise since there's that "Make-This-Look-Awesome" Photoshop filter. Could it be he just doesn't like the new way of things, since it's not how he did it? If that's a correct assumption though, I think he's pretty wrong. First, Photoshop just makes it easier to make crap. I mean look at what I do with it. There's a skill set you get in art school that photoshop cannot replace, and the students who don't care about that now wouldn't have cared about it twenty years ago, either.
This is kind of a universal truth, though. It's said that Queen's Hospital is waiting for the older generation of doctors to retire before they completely switch over to electronic records because many of them refuse to try and learn it. I don't think they say it's because of a lack of dexterity that comes with electronic record keeping, but they often have similarly weird arguments.
I'm invoking Douglas Adams again:
"Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
I'm right at the cusp of this, which scares me.
This actually is something that people in the art world talk about, but I don't know if it's something that people talk about "all the time." MRI and I get into rows about it. I am sure Beeeye and MRI probably have an understanding, what with being in luv and stuff.
I think we are at a point in the history of art where the mindset that believes that things made on the computer aren't real is on its last legs. It's one of those things where people just won't have much choice in the future. it will just have to be accepted, like the internet, and cell phones. (But not Twitter...never Twitter!)
I do not think motor skills are being harmed. I do concede that something is being affected, and I am not sure to what end. I would say that we are altering our tactile sensibilities to some degree. I am really not sure how this will affect art in general, but it is definitely happening.
I think your art teacher is a reactionary, and a bit of a chicken little.
Don't get me wrong. I have great respect for tradition, and for the handmade object, but to equate computers with being something more than a tool is ridiculous. It is the responsibility of the teacher to keep track of technology, if that is something they are concerned about, not use it as a scapegoat for insecurities about the changing world.
Fuge pretty much hits the nail on the head in regards to making crap easier. Students are always going to try to get by with doing as little work as possible unless they are interested in what they are doing. What your old teacher is probably seeing is students who are lazy, and trying to cut and paste images together and write it off as theirs. I got a few of these kids in my art classes. They are the same kids who rely on all the special effect tools in drawing programs. You can spot them a mile away if you know what to look for.
In regards to a "skill set that you get in art school", I'm a bit in the dark about that. I have definitely had an advantage in learning art skills having been raised in the arts, but you can quote me on this, I don't think there's any special secret skills that one learns in art school. To me, that's like saying you can only make movies in LA. It's just hype to keep students in art school. I didn't learn anything new in regards of how to draw, what art school did for me, was open my eyes to new ideas and practices. If you don't have the necessary skills already in your repertoire, you won't go far in art school.
I was thinking of that douglas Adams quote when I first read this post by Odori. I started typing my reaction to it, and got distracted by food. When I came back Fugu and Pony had already posted. Glad I didn't put that into mine, hehhe.
I guess when I say skill set, I'm thinking of specific techniques or technical knowledge, like ratios that work aesthetically but aren't over used, color schemes, repetition theory, tricks learned by trial and error from people who've been doing this stuff for a lifetime... huh... which incidentally is probably why they feel so burned these days. How many people really need to know how to work a dark room now except to make out with other students? [fun] Anyway, like even Scott Mccloud kind of stuff. I don't know how you could pick up that kind of thing outside of a book or art theory class.
I remember going to see a guest lecturer at KCC a while ago who did concept art for one of the original Golden Compass scripts (one that probably didn't suck). It was fascinating to see how much technical skill went behind doing digital art, and I was thinking back to this when I was talking about things you need to learn in art school so as not to suck. I He spent hours going over how to design the best brushes in Photoshop, how to build color palettes, figure out the math behind reflections and shadows, creating different materials... aaaaand so on.
Here's his site and a few of his things:
Shadowbaron
Hovership
My teacher's favorite medium is ceramics, if I remember correctly.
So he may be biased towards crafts as Mr. Pony says. Then again, I think many in Japan, my teacher included, would say ceramics is not a craft, but art.
And like Fugu and Galspanic suspect, I wouldn't be surprised if he dislikes new technology.
I completely agree people need to keep up with the world as it changes around us. Computers are everywhere - we must adapt to them. And embrace them. (Yikes - this sounds a little freakishly sci-fi! )
At the same time, I think it's worth pondering whether being around computers from the time of birth may affect the way young kids think. It suspect it must affect the way children create -- maybe changing their tactile sensibilties like Galspanic says.
As an aside, I have many fond memories of Mr. Tanaka's classroom, even though I was a poor art student. I can still hear him yelling, "OH-drheee! WHAT are you DOOO-ing?!"
Fun times.
Post a Comment