I think there are few things more enjoyable than when you get to use a piece of knowledge you once learned and didn't appreciate at the time. I've mentioned before that my art classes in junior high were filled with information on famous impressionist, cubist, modern, classical, and pointillism paintings. The body of knowledge we learned in those three years was extensive.
However, I always hated that we were told to copy famous works of art. While it helped me to learn about them, it seemed stifling to our young creative minds to have to copy something that had already been made. We were then graded on how accurately we could finish the masterpiece in the one hour we were allotted. An hour was never enough time and very few people did well in the class.
Since I've spent much of the last year in and out of museums, I've often wondered whether my opinion was right or the teacher's was. Was the art history lesson worth the sacrifice of freedom of expression?
Well, I found my answer in the Van Gogh museum. The museum itself is pretty remarkable. It is laid out as a timeline of his painting career, which only lasted for ten years. It went through where he drew his inspirations from and then which artists were inspired by his work. We were led from room to room and watched how his paintings changed as he became more skilled and responded to changes in his life.
The most wonderful thing about the museum was how imperfect Van Gogh's paintings were. Many of them lacked perspective or showed impossible angles, the strokes were rough and uneven, and in many cases the canvas was still showing. Yet all of the paintings were still remarkable. It was the imperfections that made them so unique. It became clear how his work wasn't appreciated during his time but is now celebrated for being so vibrant and distinct.
On one wall, there were two paintings of the same image. It was of a woman working at a well. The first painting was by one of the artists Van Gogh drew his inspiration from, and the second was by Van Gogh himself. Although they were the same image, they could not have been more different when it came to style and technique. One was done in fine, exact detail, and the other showed Van Gogh's rough, expressive brush strokes - and they were both beautiful.
So it got me thinking about those art classes. Even though our teacher was very appreciative of Van Gogh's work, she missed the point of his art. He never wanted to copy other artists - he wanted to be inspired by them, but to make art in his own way. If we had been taught about the different art masterpieces and then asked to paint something that was inspired by one of those paintings, I think there would have been a greater lesson there. Grading young students on how well they can copy art is stifling and uninspiring, but encouraging then to draw inspiration from masterpieces and create their own works of art - then you are really teaching something.
However, I always hated that we were told to copy famous works of art. While it helped me to learn about them, it seemed stifling to our young creative minds to have to copy something that had already been made. We were then graded on how accurately we could finish the masterpiece in the one hour we were allotted. An hour was never enough time and very few people did well in the class.
Since I've spent much of the last year in and out of museums, I've often wondered whether my opinion was right or the teacher's was. Was the art history lesson worth the sacrifice of freedom of expression?
Well, I found my answer in the Van Gogh museum. The museum itself is pretty remarkable. It is laid out as a timeline of his painting career, which only lasted for ten years. It went through where he drew his inspirations from and then which artists were inspired by his work. We were led from room to room and watched how his paintings changed as he became more skilled and responded to changes in his life.
The most wonderful thing about the museum was how imperfect Van Gogh's paintings were. Many of them lacked perspective or showed impossible angles, the strokes were rough and uneven, and in many cases the canvas was still showing. Yet all of the paintings were still remarkable. It was the imperfections that made them so unique. It became clear how his work wasn't appreciated during his time but is now celebrated for being so vibrant and distinct.
On one wall, there were two paintings of the same image. It was of a woman working at a well. The first painting was by one of the artists Van Gogh drew his inspiration from, and the second was by Van Gogh himself. Although they were the same image, they could not have been more different when it came to style and technique. One was done in fine, exact detail, and the other showed Van Gogh's rough, expressive brush strokes - and they were both beautiful.
So it got me thinking about those art classes. Even though our teacher was very appreciative of Van Gogh's work, she missed the point of his art. He never wanted to copy other artists - he wanted to be inspired by them, but to make art in his own way. If we had been taught about the different art masterpieces and then asked to paint something that was inspired by one of those paintings, I think there would have been a greater lesson there. Grading young students on how well they can copy art is stifling and uninspiring, but encouraging then to draw inspiration from masterpieces and create their own works of art - then you are really teaching something.
No comments:
Post a Comment