education.... or just another brick in the wall?
Every time I sit with the thought of writing something on my blog, something about art- I get verbal constipation.
It’s now some 5 years that I have been teaching kids, youth occasionally all about drawing and how to approach it. At regular intervals I remind people sitting in my class that I am not here, to tell them a how to approach, to anything. I am a friend, a guide who has toyed with a pencil, paper and a few colors for a longer time than the people who want to start- that’s all there is to it. Apart from a few rules of anatomy, perspective and construction which need to be learnt, after that it’s completely the whim of the artist whether he wants to use them or no.
Most, rather all the art schools provide nothing but a strong command over these basics. After the course, a true seeker finds the burden of de- learning so great that he compromises with a mere cut n paste of all the art movements that have been there. Though, there is nothing wrong in this since there are the pressures of being successful and all other things related. What matters- are you being true to yourself?
If Picasso was satisfied with his art, all the so called “periods” that have been there might have never existed. Pick any great master; what makes him great is the struggle he had to be true to what art meant to him. Lautrec, Paul Klee, Gustav Klimt, Henri Matisse, Sultan Ali or even Hussain; if these men hadn’t struggled, stood for what is right- art would be completely different.
The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t provide any system to grade the pupil, and takes away the authority from a teacher. Laziness can be easily hidden under the brand of a personal style and again, integrity suffers!
What is it that I am trying to do with my argument against the institutional approach?
What I believe in has the risk of taking away discipline and employment from a number of organizations. Most of the great names of art have any which ways been a by product of self learning than any lessons by anyone.
Inside a class room, I have faced this problem so much that it frustrates and shivers my innards. The moment I enter a class, I am looked upon as an authority that will tell them what is right, what is not. I am supposed to write a computer program on the board or speak it out aloud. Everyone knows the defined parameters and production begins- a red sun with a tinge of saffron, a nose between the two eyes etc. the moment one tells them to innovate and think- bang! A mutiny can almost be sensed!
When I teach, it’s not with the intention of creating great artists. If one can enquire and ask questions about ones own existence and choices…….. Victory is mine!
An after thought: Who am I to do this?
It’s now some 5 years that I have been teaching kids, youth occasionally all about drawing and how to approach it. At regular intervals I remind people sitting in my class that I am not here, to tell them a how to approach, to anything. I am a friend, a guide who has toyed with a pencil, paper and a few colors for a longer time than the people who want to start- that’s all there is to it. Apart from a few rules of anatomy, perspective and construction which need to be learnt, after that it’s completely the whim of the artist whether he wants to use them or no.
Most, rather all the art schools provide nothing but a strong command over these basics. After the course, a true seeker finds the burden of de- learning so great that he compromises with a mere cut n paste of all the art movements that have been there. Though, there is nothing wrong in this since there are the pressures of being successful and all other things related. What matters- are you being true to yourself?
If Picasso was satisfied with his art, all the so called “periods” that have been there might have never existed. Pick any great master; what makes him great is the struggle he had to be true to what art meant to him. Lautrec, Paul Klee, Gustav Klimt, Henri Matisse, Sultan Ali or even Hussain; if these men hadn’t struggled, stood for what is right- art would be completely different.
The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t provide any system to grade the pupil, and takes away the authority from a teacher. Laziness can be easily hidden under the brand of a personal style and again, integrity suffers!
What is it that I am trying to do with my argument against the institutional approach?
What I believe in has the risk of taking away discipline and employment from a number of organizations. Most of the great names of art have any which ways been a by product of self learning than any lessons by anyone.
Inside a class room, I have faced this problem so much that it frustrates and shivers my innards. The moment I enter a class, I am looked upon as an authority that will tell them what is right, what is not. I am supposed to write a computer program on the board or speak it out aloud. Everyone knows the defined parameters and production begins- a red sun with a tinge of saffron, a nose between the two eyes etc. the moment one tells them to innovate and think- bang! A mutiny can almost be sensed!
When I teach, it’s not with the intention of creating great artists. If one can enquire and ask questions about ones own existence and choices…….. Victory is mine!
An after thought: Who am I to do this?
Comments
We wouldn't be reading about Siddhartha's enlightenment if he hadn't taught what he knew.
You must do what you are compelled to do. That's it :)