@atlascentaur Interestingly, we are in agreement. I don’t see it as a black and white issue either. Read my posts more closely. I think that skills can be taught and practiced in a program that supports conceptual and contemporary art. My daughter did NOT get a skill-free education. D did learn to talk about art through critiques both verbal and written. She did study philosophy and historical movements. But all her teachers are creating and exhibiting their work. Many are published as well, but that is not their prime craft. Making art is. Perhaps her experience in NYC at NYU was unique, but certainly the emphasis was on being a pacticing artist with a strong foundation of skills.
Excellent. Also note that I don’t see conceptual and contemporary as the same. There’s great contemporary art that is blissfully not conceptual.
I find that, in general, a lot of people talking about this topic do minimize the topic into either high skill realism or low skill everything else.
pooper union is 100% conceptual. One of the most innovative schools is VCUARTS. They have the world renowned Brand Center, and the DaVinci program --designed to give REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE so an artist can earn a living in the real world and contribute to the art world in a meaningful way. And they are top rated in most of their other programs as well. Highly recommended.
@stones3 I’m curious about what specifically VCU is doing to prepare students for the real world and learning to earn a living that is different than other schools?
Clearly if a school offers a graphic design degree it is geared for the business world. So that is a job path. No secret there. There are jobs in animation. There are jobs in game design. Illustrators can be commissioned to do commercial work. Art education is a career path…
But what if one studies fine arts and doesn’t want to do graphics or digital work? How is VCU different In preparing artists for the real world and making a difference to the art world?
Without specifics, these words sound like empty cliches. I’d like to have a real idea about how they are so different.
usk00lfish, I did give specifics. Please look up the DaVinci center at VCU. It is a wholly unique program that pairs business, stem and art majors to tackle real world problems. They have provided support to companies such as Pfizer, Altria, CarMax, and Kimberly Clarke just to name a few. Just one of the unique things VCUARTS has available for an art major.
In addition , VCUARTS has placed numerous students in all manner of internships. From our experience with D ,
just in her freshman year she sold several art pieces created for foundation year, she was hired to contribute articles to a weekly blog and as a note of pride won a writing contest from the greater VCU .
She is now weighing next summer internships as she has several opportunities in NYC
For the motivated students there are so many avenues to consider at VCUARTS but the student has to reach out , no one takes them by the hand. Also most of the faculty are also working artist so they provide invaluable mentorship.
If you doubt this take a look at the now famous Brandcenter at VCUARTS --a world renowned program for grad students focusing on advertising and design. Also there are resources there for undergrads as well.
@stones3 No, I’m not doubting any of the programs that you are describing. Many of the ones you mention sound particularly good for someone who wants to go into graphic design and advertising/ brand management. But many art students do not want to go in that direction.
Certainly internships for art majors are available in many schools. At NYU there is a position in the art department dedicated just to overseeing internships and other opportunities for art majors. They are not all graphic art opportunities with business. Some entail working in art galleries, designing textiles, assisting well-established artists in the making of art, working for arts organizations, painting murals around the city, teaching art in supplemental programs, running a kiln, or operating presses or glass blowing equipment to name a few. There are also a lot of collaborative opportunities available for art students who are called upon for set design, stage makeup and props for various theatrical and film productions by both students and professionals.
It is wonderful that VCUArts has even exceeded your expectations. But it may be less unique than you think. There is no need to assume that other schools offer few opportunities to gain real world experience versus VCU.
As has been previously (exhaustively discussed) on various art school threads, both the Brand Center and the da Vinci Center are primarily for graduate students. There are some undergraduate level certificates offered at the latter, but it is not a full scale undergraduate program. I believe the OP is looking for undergraduate programs?
Whereas I very much disagree with the OP’s premise, i.e., that historically elite dedicated undergraduate art programs are all rigidly conceptual, I think I understand the pitfalls he is seeking to avoid in making a choice for his son. Intuitively sounds to me as if the OP would be best served looking at more tech-oriented art school such as RIT, SVA, and others that are very strong in digital arts, including computer 2D and 3D animation.
My daughter attends RIT. If you are looking for a school which supports art/design/technology integration, it is a great fit. There are a number of very interesting programs. Industrial Design, Graphic Design, New Media Design, Film, etc.
RIT is a national university which is highly rated for design. RIT is the university. There are colleges within the university; CIAS is the College of Imaging Arts and Sciences. You can read about the different “Schools” within the CIAS here: https://www.rit.edu/overview/cias
For a tech/design major with a great future, look at:
New Media Design: http://cias.rit.edu/schools/design/undergraduate-new-media-design
Top students exiting with a BFA in this major have been reported making $120,000 their first year post graduating. See this Salary/Coop chart: https://www.rit.edu/emcs/oce/employer/salary . This just amazes me, as I would never have guessed at a student with a BFA making that large sum.
They also have an exciting MAGIC Spells Studio facility opening in 2019.
http://magic.rit.edu/studios/facility/
I don’t know anything about Quora, but these feel as if they are real quotes from former students on jobs/RIT reputation: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-reputation-of-RIT-in-tech-industries
RIT is a co-op school - not all students are required to have a co-op, and design students need to search out their own co-ops. My daughter, a designer, was not required to have a co-op, but sought one out. She had a very well paying co-op. As a bonus, registered co-ops are not counted against financial aid, while other earnings are.
On Financial Aid:
RIT gave much more financial aid than any other art schools (she received quite a bit of “merit” from art schools, however none of it compared to the RIT financial aid award. No schools met anywhere near our “need” - it has ended us costing less than our state colleges would have.) Housing CAN (not all) be less expensive than housing than art schools located in metropolitan areas (most seem to be.) If finances are a concern, make sure to look at BEYOND the first year of housing costs. No one told us this, parents don’t know enough to think about this, and I am glad that we lucked out. The financial aid award tends to estimate a housing cost not related to reality. (For example - housing costs on campus at RIT range from $4,800 (unfurnished/shared) to almost $10,000 (furnished/private room) a year, depending on which housing a student tries to get - it is a lottery. The financial aid is based upon the cost of a freshman dorm, almost $7,000. So your student living in a less expensive or more expensive situation does not effect the financial aid award. That can really help or impact negatively your finances.
While the first year housing cost was similar between RIT and MassArt, RIT housing is costing us about $5,000 this year. MassArt housing would cost us at least $10,000 for a shared apartment, one year lease. Over 3 post-freshman years, that adds up.
I found the College Navigator quite excellent at estimating costs - this links to RIT, but you can enter in any college to find their information. https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=rochester+institute&s=all&id=195003 . Click on the “Net Price” tab to find that information.
Someone had posted about Ringling; Ringling is great - my daughter went there for a summer program, and had a great experience. She subsequently received a coveted “merit” scholarship - we would all have had to take on a lot more debt, however. With that merit we would still have been spending about $50,000 a year. We could afford, according to the FAFSA, $13,000 a year. She didn’t want to graduate with more than the “federal loans” as my husband and I could not take on that debt. We are very frugal with our $, and still pay about $24,000 a year for RIT (including housing/food/supplies/travel…) without taking on additional loans, although our credit card bill slowly and steadily rises. We will pay that down immediately when she graduates. Over 4 years, we would have been paying over $100,000 more to attend Ringling. Sigh.
Also, there was the statement in this thread about Ringling is “tops” in game design. I don’t believe that they are, based on recent rankings - RIT is very near the top, and Ringling much lower.
https://www.princetonreview.com/press/game-design-press-release
https://www.gamedesigning.org/video-game-design-schools/
Top Graphic Design Schools
http://gdusa.com/news/top-stories/gdusa-2017-top-graphic-design-schools
Ringling is near the top of animation schools - RIT seventh. RIT students have worked on major films, and graduate with much lower debt. It is how you see the entire picture.
Saw your note “Intuitively sounds to me as if the OP would be best served looking at more tech-oriented art school such as RIT, SVA, and others that are very strong in digital arts, including computer 2D and 3D animation.”
Perhaps for my son. But on the broader issue… I’m deeply involved with art - married to a practicing artist with national exposure and friend of many artists. The conceptual approach my son encountered at SAIC has little connection with artists working as artists. One of our very good friends observed that few people he went to art school with really wanted to be artists - that they were there to study art.
With that in mind, perhaps the conceptual approach makes it a field that can be studied, graded, analyzed, the subject of tremendous big papers, and warrants becoming a “professor of art”. But, by observation, there’s little value to the individual who wants to be an artist in the conceptual approach (with a few exceptions).
“So I’m looking for ideas for my son’s future…” – Glad in this respect, I was on point. Assumed the “broader issue” was more for philosophical debate than practical application to your son’s quest. Of course, the existence of the conceptual approach to art does not, in itself, mean that historically elite dedicated art schools are strictly conceptual. From my more limited perspective and experience (I relax with coloring books and my wife is a local PT), there are indeed students who go to art school solely to “study art”. But, then again, what does it mean to “really (want) to be (an artist)”? Am I only an artist when painting, sculpting or otherwise creating solely for personal, socio-political or commercial purposes? If I design packaging and products, advertising (your field?), work as an architect or countless other fields that may be generated and enhanced through and art school education, am I not an “artist”?
It sounds to me as if you are differentiating between the pure study of art versus the practical aspects of the ‘field’. In other words, I learn to paint, but can I stretch a canvas, mix my paints and handle the mechanics of my craft? Perhaps more, can I survive in the commercial business aspects of my field; survive the economics, pitch to agents, launch and coordinate a show. It would appear that this is a slower developing aspect of art schools. Not so much the mechanics part (D2 at RISD most definitely handles all of the mechanics of her art and, in fact, is expected to), but certainly the real world survival part. Definitely think it behooves dedicated art schools to offer business classes and other real world application education.
Understand your points. My point is that the money making fine artists I know do not start from a conceptual basis. NOT commercial art - but fine arts. One friend sells his works for $100K+ and is collected around the world.
But it’s not the business basis. Rather that a conceptual start creates what I believe ends up as shallow art - where the philosophical statement is more important than the work itself.
Ran into this quote yesterday from Louise Bourgeois (sculpture, installations, drawings): “A work of art doesn’t need to be explained. If you do not have any feeling about this, I cannot explain it to you. If it doesn’t touch you, then I have failed”
The conceptual art contrast (extreme - I agree) is “you won’t understand my art unless you read my artist statement. And it matters more that the statement about it is philosophically interesting than that the work is visually compelling.”
Fine artists that succeed work as Louise Bourgeois. What are these conceptual schools preparing students for?
@atlascentaur Are you familiar with Louise Bourgeois’ reputation and body of work or are you only relying on her quote to make a point? Because she is a conceptual artist and is NOT making work primarily for its aesthetics or commercial value.
"Bourgeois’s artwork is renowned for its highly personal thematic content involving the unconscious, sexual desire, and the body. These themes draw on events in her childhood for which she considered making art a therapeutic or cathartic process.
Bourgeois transformed her experiences into a highly personal visual language through the use of mythological and archetypal imagery, adopting objects such as spirals, spiders, cages, medical tools, and sewn appendages to symbolize the feminine psyche, beauty, and psychological pain.
Through the use of abstract form and a wide variety of media, Bourgeois dealt with notions of universal balance, playfully juxtaposing materials conventionally considered male or female. She would, for example, use rough or hard materials most strongly associated with masculinity to sculpt soft biomorphic forms suggestive of femininity."
She is known for her weekly critiques in Chelsea–she lived by the galleries there and taught in Pratt and Cooper Union for many years. I am not sure where you live, but I live part-time in Chelsea and frequent the galleries there, on the Lower East Side and in Brooklyn. I am surrounded by conceptual art and do not rely on just the artist statement to appreciate it. Believe me, Louise Bourgeois’ work was not created for its aesthetics and many of her pieces championed the use of unique materials to further the themes of her body of work.
Here is a link to many of her other quotes. You will see that by isolating the quote you posted, you are presenting a statement totally out of context to her thoughts on art.
uskoolfish- I made no such assumptions. Obviously there are other fine art schools out there and certainly there are other paths to a successful design/art career . I believe I was asked for specifics at VCUART so I provided a few. As it happens D is a graphic design major , so its not surprising that’s what I am most familiar with. No doubt other majors have similar experiences for example the sculpture major who interned at Universal Studios making sculptures . BTW vcuarts scultpture department is actually one of the best ran in the nation. On a grad level they were ranked as the #1 program. anyway its just another example. So from our experience VCUARTS seems to have a emphasis on real world application that’s not to suggest other schools don’t .
I thoroughly enjoy much of Bourgeois sculpture and her drawings. There is sculptural and installation work I don’t like.
What will be interesting is to see whether her “spider” like sculpture doesn’t become what she’s primarily remembered for rather than the other work that does follow the path to get known with idea. My guess is those big sculptures will be what mostly remain.
That said, her demand for visual impact first and foremost is key and saves her conceptual work from the really serious move into pure philosophy that so many attempt to pass off as art today.
uskoolfish - what’s funny in those quotes is that they pretty thoroughly support the quote I picked. She is digging through her own emotional connections and demands that the art express visually. That’s consistent in all that she says. Not clear to me what you read in them.
I think you also twist my words about visual when you call it “aesthetics”. But I can see we’re done here. You’re a true believer in the glory of conceptual art. I’m a skeptic who sees that portion of the art world that it has really screwed up while believing there are some exceptions but not many.
@atlascentaur I am not a “true believer” in conceptual art. There is some conceptual art that I think is successful…and some that is not. What I meant by aesthetics is whether something is visually appealing. Louise Bourgeois did not chose her materials or create her artwork based on its attractiveness. She is using emotional connections to create a body of work based on ideas and symbols. I think much of her art is an example of good conceptual art. I don’t quite understand what you mean when you imply that a lot of conceptual art doesn’t have visual impact and that it is more philosophical in nature. What do you mean by “pure philosophy?”
What do you mean by “pure philosophy?”
One of my favorite memories is watching a group of elementary students at an art museum sitting on the floor in front of (I kid you not…) a blank white canvas with a black line drawn across the bottom half . A guy was asking them what they thought this picture (?) represented… Those kids weren’t stupid–most said they could do better and looked at him like he was nuts. I sided with the kids. He continued on with some great universal truth story which was more baloney than ever was put in a sandwich. Nobody bought it.
@gouf78 I would side with the kids on that one, too!
But there is a lot of conceptual art that is much more than that and I do feel that good art schools are not just training students to put up white canvases and come up with ways to explain it. There just seems to be a belief among some cc members that skills are not taught in conceptual art programs and that emphasis is only placed on artist statements and philosophizing. My daughter’s experience has not been that at all. I don’t think that the art world has totally screwed up by exploring artwork that has meaning and is not necessarily aesthetically pleasing.