So I am currently an Art History major and I love it! But, I am wondering what kind of jobs are actually available for art lovers, that can actually support a comfortable lifestyle. Any Art History majors that have any advice would be greatly appreciated! And also did any of you go back for a masters or PhD in anything or in Art History after getting a BFA in Art History? THANKS!
-p-
Majoring in Art History?
You can be a curator of a Museum, for one. There are other positions you can fill. Research it.
If time %26amp; money permit, you should keep studying.. The time might come when you can teach Art History on a college level. Now, that would be exciiing!
Reply:I got my BA in art history in 2002, and I loved it. A few years later, I went back to school, and got a graduate certificate in art history in Italy.
Right now, I'm finishing up my MA in Museum Professions, and it's a great, practical way to apply my love of art history. I'm studying to be a registrar, which is the person in the museum who is in charge of condition reports, organizing and overseeing packing and shipping, helping to install, transporting the artworks through the museum, processing gifts and loans, etc. Lots of contact with the art, which is great. It's also a fairly well-paying job, considering that you're in the non-profit sector.
A PhD will get you into academia or on the track to being a curator. If you aren't interested in either of these fields, I don't think a PhD in art history is the way to go. Those are the only two jobs I'm aware of that the degree would apply to.
Anyway, best of luck.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Has fine art been 'dumbed down' due to reproduction?
i have strange thoughts while eating breakfast, this morning it was.. has art been dumbed down over the past 150 years, due to the ability to reproduce prints etc (warhol often commented on this..) from fine art to arts and crafts.. has making art more open and accessible instead of intimate/useful/reserved made the idea of art less important?
you could argur that morris made wallpaper.. but that is still about making a small space beautiful and intimate...
Has fine art been 'dumbed down' due to reproduction?
I had a question about this not long ago. I think it does in a way - its boring and repetetive when you see the same pieces all over the internet, magazines and in the streets. The freshness and true qualities of the original are lost by its cheap reproduction, so you are numbed to it's real meaning and value. I think you can only really appreciate an art-work and understand the artists feelings and intentions when you experience it first-hand.
However, it's important to get the message of art to many different people, so they all have the chance to see and understand it for themselves. I find it really inspiring to see paintings and other bits of art in my daily life, particularly in places where they're unexpected. Maybe art shouldn't be viewable only in galleries.
Good question : )
Reply:If we look at Modern conceptual fine art, the idea remains paramount, not the realization, reproduction etc. In this sense, authenticity takes a back seat. Why should art be the reserve of those with money or ACCESS to elite thinking, production?
Reply:You could say that fine art has been dumbed down, but it lends to the question, what exactly is fine art, and who decides which piece is worthy of this tag?
I think it is a totally personal belief. Either you like the piece or you dont. Frankly, I have seen pieces of art that have sold for millions and millions of dollars that I thought...man! That is really crap! Im sure my 6 year old could do better brush strokes etc....but then I have seen some common "cheap" pieces that seriously stirred feelings within..now these pieces may have seemed crap to the person who bought the art for millions of dollars!
I think that there needs to be less snobbery around art..(not you by any means, just in general), and more acceptance that people will buy what they find appeals to them.
Reply:The craftmanship of the original can never be "dumbed down" by reproduction. In fact, that's the reason that reproduction prints are so popular. My own walls are decorated with several Van Gough prints, and, I consider myslelf to be a pretty fair artist.
I side with those that appreciate that the world's best art is accessible to the masses. How else would I be able to see the works of South American, Asian and African artists? The world is a cosmopolitan place and the technology is what makes us be able to share in each other's culture.
Reply:No, in the 60s and 70s you had to go to museums, not always available, or find heavy tomes in libraries, and prints often took some finding. Now much more art is available, and is seen. Although some pics are overdone, you don't see the same couple of prints ie:- ' boy crying' (a 'fire' urban myth surrounded this picture, it was even featured on 'That's Life'). Another terrible one was of a 'Malaysian woman'.
I have 2 Dali re pros on my walls.
Art has been given a boost by this proliferation.
Also people who are artists or photographers (particularly those who have used a darkroom, and 'timers' on cameras,) make better use of 'photo shop' etc than people who aren't.
Reply:I get what you're sayin', and I think, to an extent, it has. Those with a natural born talent for specific or various art forms can still create a masterpiece from nothing. But I think because there's so many fads these days, that art often times becomes one. If somebody with no natural capabilities wants to paint, they take a Painting 101 class and learn the basics to create somethin' that may or may not look like it took the same effort that a dedicated artist would put into it.
That's not to say that every single person shouldn't have the opportunity to partake in any artist activity they have an interest in, and sometimes people with 0 experience can experiment and come up with something just as beautiful and/or inspiring as somebody that's a veteran at that particular medium... I jus' think it can get frustrating for people who have done what they do for a long time to see "newbies" create something similar with newer techniques or "dumbed down" methods.
Reply:Fine Art hasn't been, but I suspect that judgement might have been.
Reply:I believe it's the viewer that's been dumbed-down - at least in North America, where education in fine art and art history is optional and not part of the basic school curriculum. This act of omission leaves us with a nation of people who are, to a great extent, unable to understand art or even recognize it when they see it.
We have educated our children to believe that art in any form (classic music, dance %26amp; literary styles, poetry as well as fine art) is not aimed at the common person but is intended only for highbrows and snobs. This leads the general public toward the consumption of "affordable art" simply because it's within their realm of understanding.
It's not just about beauty, art is a statement about our culture. Look through history books and you see cultural eras represented by art... what is the statement made by the 21st century?
Reply:NO!
The visual arts have been progressively relocated to the digital arena.
This is a wonderful thing for myself, a digital artist. I don't use a canvas. I draw what my mind says, just like all of you all, then I can animate my drawings quickly and easily.
I want to point out a way that all artists can get ahead in this world, using their own skills. Learn how to use photoshop (one book, or one class - the same thing). Then, learn how to use After Effects (several classes, or one book). If you are a great artist you can seriously rule a significant portion of animated media if you learn how to use After Effects.
Hate my words or not, technology is replacing hours behind the brush with minutes behind the mouse.
Fight it and fail. Abuse it and succeed.
you could argur that morris made wallpaper.. but that is still about making a small space beautiful and intimate...
Has fine art been 'dumbed down' due to reproduction?
I had a question about this not long ago. I think it does in a way - its boring and repetetive when you see the same pieces all over the internet, magazines and in the streets. The freshness and true qualities of the original are lost by its cheap reproduction, so you are numbed to it's real meaning and value. I think you can only really appreciate an art-work and understand the artists feelings and intentions when you experience it first-hand.
However, it's important to get the message of art to many different people, so they all have the chance to see and understand it for themselves. I find it really inspiring to see paintings and other bits of art in my daily life, particularly in places where they're unexpected. Maybe art shouldn't be viewable only in galleries.
Good question : )
Reply:If we look at Modern conceptual fine art, the idea remains paramount, not the realization, reproduction etc. In this sense, authenticity takes a back seat. Why should art be the reserve of those with money or ACCESS to elite thinking, production?
Reply:You could say that fine art has been dumbed down, but it lends to the question, what exactly is fine art, and who decides which piece is worthy of this tag?
I think it is a totally personal belief. Either you like the piece or you dont. Frankly, I have seen pieces of art that have sold for millions and millions of dollars that I thought...man! That is really crap! Im sure my 6 year old could do better brush strokes etc....but then I have seen some common "cheap" pieces that seriously stirred feelings within..now these pieces may have seemed crap to the person who bought the art for millions of dollars!
I think that there needs to be less snobbery around art..(not you by any means, just in general), and more acceptance that people will buy what they find appeals to them.
Reply:The craftmanship of the original can never be "dumbed down" by reproduction. In fact, that's the reason that reproduction prints are so popular. My own walls are decorated with several Van Gough prints, and, I consider myslelf to be a pretty fair artist.
I side with those that appreciate that the world's best art is accessible to the masses. How else would I be able to see the works of South American, Asian and African artists? The world is a cosmopolitan place and the technology is what makes us be able to share in each other's culture.
Reply:No, in the 60s and 70s you had to go to museums, not always available, or find heavy tomes in libraries, and prints often took some finding. Now much more art is available, and is seen. Although some pics are overdone, you don't see the same couple of prints ie:- ' boy crying' (a 'fire' urban myth surrounded this picture, it was even featured on 'That's Life'). Another terrible one was of a 'Malaysian woman'.
I have 2 Dali re pros on my walls.
Art has been given a boost by this proliferation.
Also people who are artists or photographers (particularly those who have used a darkroom, and 'timers' on cameras,) make better use of 'photo shop' etc than people who aren't.
Reply:I get what you're sayin', and I think, to an extent, it has. Those with a natural born talent for specific or various art forms can still create a masterpiece from nothing. But I think because there's so many fads these days, that art often times becomes one. If somebody with no natural capabilities wants to paint, they take a Painting 101 class and learn the basics to create somethin' that may or may not look like it took the same effort that a dedicated artist would put into it.
That's not to say that every single person shouldn't have the opportunity to partake in any artist activity they have an interest in, and sometimes people with 0 experience can experiment and come up with something just as beautiful and/or inspiring as somebody that's a veteran at that particular medium... I jus' think it can get frustrating for people who have done what they do for a long time to see "newbies" create something similar with newer techniques or "dumbed down" methods.
Reply:Fine Art hasn't been, but I suspect that judgement might have been.
Reply:I believe it's the viewer that's been dumbed-down - at least in North America, where education in fine art and art history is optional and not part of the basic school curriculum. This act of omission leaves us with a nation of people who are, to a great extent, unable to understand art or even recognize it when they see it.
We have educated our children to believe that art in any form (classic music, dance %26amp; literary styles, poetry as well as fine art) is not aimed at the common person but is intended only for highbrows and snobs. This leads the general public toward the consumption of "affordable art" simply because it's within their realm of understanding.
It's not just about beauty, art is a statement about our culture. Look through history books and you see cultural eras represented by art... what is the statement made by the 21st century?
Reply:NO!
The visual arts have been progressively relocated to the digital arena.
This is a wonderful thing for myself, a digital artist. I don't use a canvas. I draw what my mind says, just like all of you all, then I can animate my drawings quickly and easily.
I want to point out a way that all artists can get ahead in this world, using their own skills. Learn how to use photoshop (one book, or one class - the same thing). Then, learn how to use After Effects (several classes, or one book). If you are a great artist you can seriously rule a significant portion of animated media if you learn how to use After Effects.
Hate my words or not, technology is replacing hours behind the brush with minutes behind the mouse.
Fight it and fail. Abuse it and succeed.
Is modeling for nude art a sin?
I have a friend who models for nude art. She says she's a Christian and loves God very much. I asked her if her career conflicts with her faith and she tells me it doesn't at all. She says that nudity is a breath taking gift given to us by God and that nude art is a beautiful form of art. She invited me to some of her art sessions, which I attended, and it seems as though she models for sensual nude art with her posing in sexual erotic poses with other female models. Is it possible for a Christian to model for nude art and still retain her faith and love God very much. Below I have a link to one of her art photos that she has modeled in.
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q155/...
Is modeling for nude art a sin?
Well we were all born Naked..
Reply:No, but it is a great form of art.
Reply:That's not nude art my dear.
That's soft porn.
I like both, but you need to stop trolling.
Reply:Hmmm... I would need to see more pictures in order to make a judgement call, but I think those might be in bad taste.
Reply:She is deceived..
Reply:Right click %26amp; saved.
Reply:nudity is not art unless it is in the bed of a married couple.
Reply:Ya know....if you've seen one girl naked...
it kind makes you want to see the rest of them naked.
Reply:If what she poses for gives you a woody, then it is porno. If the visual gives you shrinkage, consider it art.
Reply:Art is art, not sin. At least she's using what god gave her. More power to her.
Reply:depends on who you ask, but i say no.
Reply:Was being born naked a sin?
Maybe we should all swallow a needle and thread when pregnant so babies can fashion a little diaper so the doc won't have to see them naked.
Whether you choose to model for erotic, artistic or whatever naked is a personal choice.
Reply:What does she do after the modelling session?
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q155/...
Is modeling for nude art a sin?
Well we were all born Naked..
Reply:No, but it is a great form of art.
Reply:That's not nude art my dear.
That's soft porn.
I like both, but you need to stop trolling.
Reply:Hmmm... I would need to see more pictures in order to make a judgement call, but I think those might be in bad taste.
Reply:She is deceived..
Reply:Right click %26amp; saved.
Reply:nudity is not art unless it is in the bed of a married couple.
Reply:Ya know....if you've seen one girl naked...
it kind makes you want to see the rest of them naked.
Reply:If what she poses for gives you a woody, then it is porno. If the visual gives you shrinkage, consider it art.
Reply:Art is art, not sin. At least she's using what god gave her. More power to her.
Reply:depends on who you ask, but i say no.
Reply:Was being born naked a sin?
Maybe we should all swallow a needle and thread when pregnant so babies can fashion a little diaper so the doc won't have to see them naked.
Whether you choose to model for erotic, artistic or whatever naked is a personal choice.
Reply:What does she do after the modelling session?
Do you think art can be free?
Here, art is defined as anything the artist creates in an attempt to convey their idea of art.
If you think it can be free, how? If you think it cannot be free, why not?
What is free art?
What do you think of when you see the phrase "free art"?
What could we do to spread the idea of free art?
How can we free art?
Do you think art can be free?
Vincent VanGough only sold one painting in his entire life and yet he did not let it deter him from creating in the style he wished to convey.
I am not in agreement that we are lucky to live in a day in age that we reside within. I am a great frequenter of galleries and I see the stuff that sells that is mass produced like crazy and therefore in 'every gallery' and not because it is necessarily good (and yet SOME of it is) but more often it is composed by an artist that uses cheap tricks of mass production that is more 'clever' than art.
Now you take me for instance. I paint portraits. You know what sells? Faceless people. Faceless children, so people can imagine it to be 'their' child. Faces blurred...or turned back to the observer. I have been told countless times to 'paint in a way that will sell.'
Do I do it? Heck no. I paint people. I paint souls.
I paint what people are 'thinking' and THAT is the only thing that appeals to me. When I paint what I want, I am arrested by my work, I will paint fourteen hours straight and never be bored as I enter a state of sheer enlightenment. A Zen. Care I if it sells? Well, I am always glad when I find an admirer and yes it tickles me when I sell a piece, but I will not 'sell out.'
Free Art is when, this above all else, to thine own self be true. When it is not the constructs of the world that dictates what we create, it is the soul itself that expresses existence through whatever medium we so decree Art, be is dancing or wordsmithing or any myriad of higher callings.
Anything else is just another form of prostitution.
By the way, if you want to know for sure what I call free art, click on my 360 and you will see how I perceive it, for Art is, after all...in the eye of the beholder.
Reply:Art is free to be to interpreted. Everyone walks away from a piece with different feelings. Art can trigger certain moods and memories that are different among people. That is the freedom in art, it can be interpreted any way one sees it! Report It
Reply:Art cannot be free because it is something that we as a society put a value on, and because it is valued by so many people that drives up the price. If you want free art, it's simple, make some. However, most people don't want to do that. They want a Picasso or a Warhol, because that is what they think of when they think of art. I say art is whatever an artist says it is, so put some value into the art that knowone else wants, and you can have free art.
Reply:the art come from inside
Reply:absolutely, I think it can be and should be. Thats one reason why I am for free downloading of music. If anyone gets into art "for the money" they arent true artists. If it were free(its not now) we wouldnt have ashlee simpsons or britney spears for example. (as you can see my passion for art is mainly music).
We woudlnt have this pseudo art. we would have real artists expressing themselves for pure reasons.
Reply:All art is free.
I make art.
I put it on display.
I don't charge people to view it.
Art is creative self expression in the visual, in sound, in dance, in theatrics, in writing.
To own art or a piece of art, like any comody, that you earn a living from, one must exchange
money or barter with an item of exchange agreed upon by both persons-Artist and Consumer.
I think too many people think artists are gifted and should give their work away, when they would never think of telling a lawyer or doctor the same thing.
"Free Art" such as operas or art shows in a park are usually paid for by some one, or some organization or tax money.
We should teach people to value art or appreciate art more than we do now.
Sweat, Blood, Inspiration, Perspiration, Education, Practice, Prototypes,Real Suffering
go into a work of art.
We are luckier in this age than in other centuries. There are reproductions of art in books, newspapers, magazines, department stores. There is art on office walls, in restaurants and on post office walls and in people's homes that we visit and in Free Public Libraries - all of these are free to view and wonder over.
To me, art is life and breath and beauty which no one can take from me.
Reply:No it can't be. Just live human lives. Humans are and never will be free. Even being that indivudal it's nothing free.
So just because "it comes from the heart" it's indeed indivudal, but it won't be catagorized as "Free"
Reply:art is something you create from you heart. art is something that makes you feel good inside. art can also be a stress reliever. some people use art to show their emotions
Does this look good
If you think it can be free, how? If you think it cannot be free, why not?
What is free art?
What do you think of when you see the phrase "free art"?
What could we do to spread the idea of free art?
How can we free art?
Do you think art can be free?
Vincent VanGough only sold one painting in his entire life and yet he did not let it deter him from creating in the style he wished to convey.
I am not in agreement that we are lucky to live in a day in age that we reside within. I am a great frequenter of galleries and I see the stuff that sells that is mass produced like crazy and therefore in 'every gallery' and not because it is necessarily good (and yet SOME of it is) but more often it is composed by an artist that uses cheap tricks of mass production that is more 'clever' than art.
Now you take me for instance. I paint portraits. You know what sells? Faceless people. Faceless children, so people can imagine it to be 'their' child. Faces blurred...or turned back to the observer. I have been told countless times to 'paint in a way that will sell.'
Do I do it? Heck no. I paint people. I paint souls.
I paint what people are 'thinking' and THAT is the only thing that appeals to me. When I paint what I want, I am arrested by my work, I will paint fourteen hours straight and never be bored as I enter a state of sheer enlightenment. A Zen. Care I if it sells? Well, I am always glad when I find an admirer and yes it tickles me when I sell a piece, but I will not 'sell out.'
Free Art is when, this above all else, to thine own self be true. When it is not the constructs of the world that dictates what we create, it is the soul itself that expresses existence through whatever medium we so decree Art, be is dancing or wordsmithing or any myriad of higher callings.
Anything else is just another form of prostitution.
By the way, if you want to know for sure what I call free art, click on my 360 and you will see how I perceive it, for Art is, after all...in the eye of the beholder.
Reply:Art is free to be to interpreted. Everyone walks away from a piece with different feelings. Art can trigger certain moods and memories that are different among people. That is the freedom in art, it can be interpreted any way one sees it! Report It
Reply:Art cannot be free because it is something that we as a society put a value on, and because it is valued by so many people that drives up the price. If you want free art, it's simple, make some. However, most people don't want to do that. They want a Picasso or a Warhol, because that is what they think of when they think of art. I say art is whatever an artist says it is, so put some value into the art that knowone else wants, and you can have free art.
Reply:the art come from inside
Reply:absolutely, I think it can be and should be. Thats one reason why I am for free downloading of music. If anyone gets into art "for the money" they arent true artists. If it were free(its not now) we wouldnt have ashlee simpsons or britney spears for example. (as you can see my passion for art is mainly music).
We woudlnt have this pseudo art. we would have real artists expressing themselves for pure reasons.
Reply:All art is free.
I make art.
I put it on display.
I don't charge people to view it.
Art is creative self expression in the visual, in sound, in dance, in theatrics, in writing.
To own art or a piece of art, like any comody, that you earn a living from, one must exchange
money or barter with an item of exchange agreed upon by both persons-Artist and Consumer.
I think too many people think artists are gifted and should give their work away, when they would never think of telling a lawyer or doctor the same thing.
"Free Art" such as operas or art shows in a park are usually paid for by some one, or some organization or tax money.
We should teach people to value art or appreciate art more than we do now.
Sweat, Blood, Inspiration, Perspiration, Education, Practice, Prototypes,Real Suffering
go into a work of art.
We are luckier in this age than in other centuries. There are reproductions of art in books, newspapers, magazines, department stores. There is art on office walls, in restaurants and on post office walls and in people's homes that we visit and in Free Public Libraries - all of these are free to view and wonder over.
To me, art is life and breath and beauty which no one can take from me.
Reply:No it can't be. Just live human lives. Humans are and never will be free. Even being that indivudal it's nothing free.
So just because "it comes from the heart" it's indeed indivudal, but it won't be catagorized as "Free"
Reply:art is something you create from you heart. art is something that makes you feel good inside. art can also be a stress reliever. some people use art to show their emotions
Does this look good
Anyone an art professor? I have a couple of questions.?
My husband thought he could make at least 50K a year with a masters in art and teach at a university full-time but now these answers here on yahooanswers.com are conflicting that. Can you please tell me what a typical professor teaching full-time at a university and earning at least 70k a year has gone through education wise, work experience wise, etc. and how long it took? We might not do it now. Also, would there be any important advantage to getting a art teaching degree for his undergrad. and then a masters in art, compared to just an art bachelors and art masters?
Anyone an art professor? I have a couple of questions.?
In art history, a tenure-track assistant professor with PhD in hand will make anywhere between 35 and 55k. Lower-end salaries are offered by universities in areas with lower costs of living, and by universities that don't have huge endowments. Higher end salaries are offered by universities in expensive, urban areas, and by very, very prestigious universities.
An MA in Art History will not even get his foot in the door for an interview at any 4 year college, as a PhD is necessary in that field.
If he wishes to teach studio art, that's different. A studio art professor need only have an MFA. But in order to get hired at a university, besides the MFA, he would need to have a very strong portfolio, including some juried shows, and would need to have studied with some well-known artists with specialties in his medium.
University (and even community college) professors do not get teaching degrees. These degrees are for people who intend to teach primary or secondary school.
In order to earn 70k in studio art, you have to be at least a full professor at a university in a non-urban area, or at least an associate professor in an urban area or a very prestigious university. It usually takes 6 years after hiring to be promoted to associate, and another 5-8 years to be promoted to full. But promotion is completely contingent on publication or other measures of success. In studio art, that measure of success is more participation in juried shows, commissioned works, and one-person shows at galleries and / or museums.
Reply:For your last question, yes there would be an important advantage to getting an art teaching degree: your husband would be able to teach secondary school. Depending on your geography, he could make 50k a year doing that, and with an MFA also pursue the higher ed thing.
Reply:A professor making 70k a year typically has the following:
1. A PhD and postdoctoral experience in science or engineering (8 years after the BS is typical).
2. Tenure at a research university (5 years is typical).
3. External grants that provide overhead back to the university.
One way to make more money is to teach summer school. Summer school usually amounts to about a 20% increase on an annual basis. But that only brings 50k to 60k, not 70k.
Anyone an art professor? I have a couple of questions.?
In art history, a tenure-track assistant professor with PhD in hand will make anywhere between 35 and 55k. Lower-end salaries are offered by universities in areas with lower costs of living, and by universities that don't have huge endowments. Higher end salaries are offered by universities in expensive, urban areas, and by very, very prestigious universities.
An MA in Art History will not even get his foot in the door for an interview at any 4 year college, as a PhD is necessary in that field.
If he wishes to teach studio art, that's different. A studio art professor need only have an MFA. But in order to get hired at a university, besides the MFA, he would need to have a very strong portfolio, including some juried shows, and would need to have studied with some well-known artists with specialties in his medium.
University (and even community college) professors do not get teaching degrees. These degrees are for people who intend to teach primary or secondary school.
In order to earn 70k in studio art, you have to be at least a full professor at a university in a non-urban area, or at least an associate professor in an urban area or a very prestigious university. It usually takes 6 years after hiring to be promoted to associate, and another 5-8 years to be promoted to full. But promotion is completely contingent on publication or other measures of success. In studio art, that measure of success is more participation in juried shows, commissioned works, and one-person shows at galleries and / or museums.
Reply:For your last question, yes there would be an important advantage to getting an art teaching degree: your husband would be able to teach secondary school. Depending on your geography, he could make 50k a year doing that, and with an MFA also pursue the higher ed thing.
Reply:A professor making 70k a year typically has the following:
1. A PhD and postdoctoral experience in science or engineering (8 years after the BS is typical).
2. Tenure at a research university (5 years is typical).
3. External grants that provide overhead back to the university.
One way to make more money is to teach summer school. Summer school usually amounts to about a 20% increase on an annual basis. But that only brings 50k to 60k, not 70k.
High School Art History Class?
Next year I will be a Junior in high school, and I need my art credit. I'm not an "art" person, and I am not looking forward to it. There is though, and art history class I can take. I am kind of interested in it. Can anyone who has taken an art history class in high school tell me about it? Also, at the end of the year, I can take an AP Art History exam. If I get a good grade on it, what will I get out of it? How will it benefit me?
High School Art History Class?
I'm sorry to hear you don't want to take a class in art, as you may not have found a medium you like, and will shut yourself off from possibly discovering a passion. Also, art classes develop manual skills, which transfer into other areas of life.
However, if you don't want to take one, and AH is an option, taking and scoring well on AP Art History can help you get out of taking a class in college. Most schools, as part of the core requirements for any degree, mandate some type of art class, so you may not be able to escape altogether.
Good luck....I hope you enjoy the class.
Reply:Does Archaeology interest you? Does history interest you?
Art history is part and parcel of the development of the world and its history. Maybe you can look at it with that viewpoint.
Every class we take helps round out our education and knowledge of the world, and makes us more interesting persons in the long run..
Reply:You don't have to be an "art" person to take art. Art teachers are not expecting Picasso in every student. Mostly, art teachers like to have students who have never had art classes before - it gives them a chance to show you that art is very different from all your other classes. It uses your thinking skills in a different way. If you try to do the lessons (and don't be so critical of your work - it takes TIME to do anything to satisfaction) your art teacher will see that you are trying hard. You won't flunk out - and you may just discover a part of yourself that you didn't even know existed!
As for Art History - it's a textbook course and if you like history then you will like this course too. It's not as much fun as a hands-on drawing or painting course (or even a computer graphics course - did you give that one a thought??) but then that is just my opinion. I would rather be in a class drawing or doing graphics than sitting at a desk taking notes.
Good luck in your decision.
High School Art History Class?
I'm sorry to hear you don't want to take a class in art, as you may not have found a medium you like, and will shut yourself off from possibly discovering a passion. Also, art classes develop manual skills, which transfer into other areas of life.
However, if you don't want to take one, and AH is an option, taking and scoring well on AP Art History can help you get out of taking a class in college. Most schools, as part of the core requirements for any degree, mandate some type of art class, so you may not be able to escape altogether.
Good luck....I hope you enjoy the class.
Reply:Does Archaeology interest you? Does history interest you?
Art history is part and parcel of the development of the world and its history. Maybe you can look at it with that viewpoint.
Every class we take helps round out our education and knowledge of the world, and makes us more interesting persons in the long run..
Reply:You don't have to be an "art" person to take art. Art teachers are not expecting Picasso in every student. Mostly, art teachers like to have students who have never had art classes before - it gives them a chance to show you that art is very different from all your other classes. It uses your thinking skills in a different way. If you try to do the lessons (and don't be so critical of your work - it takes TIME to do anything to satisfaction) your art teacher will see that you are trying hard. You won't flunk out - and you may just discover a part of yourself that you didn't even know existed!
As for Art History - it's a textbook course and if you like history then you will like this course too. It's not as much fun as a hands-on drawing or painting course (or even a computer graphics course - did you give that one a thought??) but then that is just my opinion. I would rather be in a class drawing or doing graphics than sitting at a desk taking notes.
Good luck in your decision.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Build an art portfolio!?
I'm in deep trouble! I did high school art until grade 12, but have lost my art portfolio. I wanted to do Vet science and am doing a foundation year, but nwo I'd rather do Visual Arts at Uni. However, how do I build a professional art portfolio before entering Uni if I already graduated from high school?(My art pieces had an accident...)
Build an art portfolio!?
One of the biggest things they look for in a portfolio is figure drawing and anything drawn from real life. So have someone pose for you or draw still life or architecture. Stick to black and white unless you have some knowledge of color theory.
Reply:Get to work , dump your boyfriend and buy a really
nice digital camera . Also better do a power point
presentationand . I asked a friend from school to help me format mine.
Build an art portfolio!?
One of the biggest things they look for in a portfolio is figure drawing and anything drawn from real life. So have someone pose for you or draw still life or architecture. Stick to black and white unless you have some knowledge of color theory.
Reply:Get to work , dump your boyfriend and buy a really
nice digital camera . Also better do a power point
presentationand . I asked a friend from school to help me format mine.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)