<p>An interesting and relevant article published today by a painter and WSJ art critic. </p>
<p>“As with almost everything on the non-STEM side of academe, what constitutes a “foundation” for today’s art students and how best to teach it are substantially driven by economics. Art schools and art departments in private colleges need tuition revenue to survive. They’re not going to get it if faculty act like the law professor whom John Houseman played in The Paper Chase, trying to ensure that only the gifted few make it through to a degree. Public colleges’ art departments face the same problem, plus the skepticism—even wrath—of philistine state legislators who, whatever the supposed employment prospects in industrial design and digital animation, regard art as an expensive educational frill.”</p>
<p>[Remember</a> Talent? Does It Still Matter in Art Education? - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“Remember Talent? Does It Still Matter in Art Education?”>Remember Talent? Does It Still Matter in Art Education?)</p>