Necrotic Obsession

I have been pondering about this for a long time.
I've met a few people that have been taking classes and doing lots of cool artistic stuff. But these people didn't go to some art college to get a piece of paper that says there an artist. I mean some stuff, like 3d art for example, you kind of want to go to college for that. But when you don't know what to do with your life, were should you go? Art is what you make it. Not how art makes you.

I have no idea what I want to do with myself. No college appeals to me for the stuff I have interest in. I'm good with clay, paint and drawing. But I can't seem to really find much colleges that do a thing with clay, don't want to paint fruit, or houses, nor do I want to be a cartoonist. I know people that still make money and have galleries even though they didn't go to college. I don't think you need a diploma showing you’re an artist, b/c anybody can pay a shit load of money, and be an artist. Yes, it helps to have it, and gives you more job opportunity’s. But I don't want to waste my money picking one trade of art and finding out I SUCK at it and now wasting my time. I can't see myself doing a drawing or painting for somebody else, and if its not the way they want it, i have to do it over.

I dunno what do you guys think???

I think, unless you want to be a doctor or a lawyer, or in a related field, college is a waiste of time and money. Especially if you want to be an artist, it just clutters up your mind with convention, when you should be trying to find your own unique voice, at least, thats my opinion.

in this world of stupidity talent means nothing... if you have a degree in something creative is going to really be your only chance to make yourself known...
but i agree it is a waste of money and I think that people should be sought out because their work is beautiful and unique other than, they have two degrees in different types of artistic stadards...
"Why not let talent speak... why allow a piece of paper do our talking?"

Well, if you want to be an artist, but want to live comfortably, I would suggest another feild, or perhaps a job in advertising? Or something equally disturbing...

why are people so complacent to this system of haves and have nots?
why is respect desired for art? Commitment to art is, in and of its self, respect. I spent 12 years learning what structures I'm supposed to believe in, and what should dictate my art. I'm spending the rest of my life unlearning it all.

I strive for the purest line to my self expression

but then, you say tomato, I say cucumber...

Taking art in a school system gives you more knowledge, teaches you how to properly work differnt medias, opens doors for you, and teaches you how to market yourself.
Even Michelangelo went through school for art.
There are three ways to get somewhere in the art world
1. Have tons of money and buy your way in
2. Sleep your way to the top
3. Be willing to die for what your art.
All my art teachers have been real artists.
*shrug* I think going to school for art is a good idea. It teaches you technique and how to fine tune your inspiration.

but why buy into some bullshit 'art world'? Why not create your own scene? Why not gather people around with different talents and different pashions, than link them together? Essentially creating your own 'art world'? What sort of advancements have ever been made from playing by the 'rules'? Fuck ascetics, fuck hegemony over art, and fuck the idea of art being used to sell me bullshit I don't need. (this is not an attack on anyone, just my feelings on the matter at hand)

Well, the way I see it, someone can be good, really good. I've watched people go through five years of art. What they started producing was really good. But it was shit when compared to what they were doing in their final year, when all their skill had been fine tuned.

No, you don't need school to be an artist, and some people are born with EXTRODINARY talent (there was this one girl in my grade 10 art class that copied a photograph to a painting perfectly and had never painted before that) but cases like that are odd. Some people are just great without schooling. BUT most people are better with some. I don't think you need a degree or a certificate or whatever to be called an artist. I just think that taking classes (whether at high school, college, university or the local visual arts center) helps in the process of creating better works.

But couldn't a person hone their talents without outside help, and in so doing come up with perhaps a totally original style? Look at Pollock...

I havn't known too many artists that can do that.
That's all.
I'm not sure if I'm familiar with Pollock, it's been a while since I've familiarized myself with names. Do you know of anything I can look at of his on the net?

sorry, i don't. Jackson Pollock. Essentially he dropped out of art school, and didn't paint for a while because he was dissatisfied with conventional technique and its ability to help him express what he wanted to. He than started painting stuff that completely shook up the 'art' world, and remain contriversial to this day.

I see what Fallen is saying, college is good to open your mind to new things and the teachers there help you to make your art better. But my problem is, finding the write colleges, there are so many!

This is a very interesting debate. I'd like to contribute, based on my experience in both college and in work.

The same questions about whether or not going to art school equating to good art/artists can be echoed in the medium of music. And there, the argument goes both ways as well. Studying music theory and performance/instrument technique can improve your ability overall, but that won't necessarily guarantee greatness. However the study of music theory is a basis, a common language, for musicians to communicate around, even if it's commonly decided that the language is to be abandoned altogether. The point is that there is a conscious understanding and rejection of the rules. THAT is empowerment. I have seen musicians develop w/o musical training and become very good musicians at what THEY do, but not good allaround musicians and generally slower learners than their studied counterpart. This is my experience with music school.

Then I dropped out and started learning Web design/development.

As an unschooled "designer", I don't know anywhere near as much about art as a student or graduate. I don't claim to be an expert in color theory, design, typography, or anything pertaining to the field of Web design. But, based on my self-energised portfolio, I can get a somewhat steady stream of professional work to keep me afoot. Here's an example of NOT studying and just doing. Outside of what you might think of my design, whether it's good or bad, etc, it's an example of how you don't need to be a classically trained artist to make a living.

I think the underlying essense to artistic greatness, no matter what the medium, is found in dedication and love for the medium. A profound obsession with it to the degree that you want to know all you can and spend as much time as possible immersed in it.

Jeah.

Good way of putting it.

A lot of people think that university tries to regiment you and tries to steal away your creativity and replace it with standardized ideas.

Mozart, Bach, Jean Paul Lemieux, Ravi Shankar, (etc etc) all of them studied under SOMEONE. The actual number of people who become big shot musicians or artists or whatever without any training is extremely minimal (but unfortnately highly publicized precisely because of their rarity).

I would say that if you have the opportunity to study what you love, go and do it! :D

PS But to answer your question directly, no you don't NEED a degree or anything, but it helps both your knowledge and your skill (and your artistic credibility)