Is There a "Best Way" to Learn Art?
"Art does not reproduce what we see. It makes us see." Paul Klee 1879-1940
How I Learned -- I was Not a Prodigy
My first memories of art education go back to 1st or 2nd grade. I believe the art class met ("met" meaning we were led there in a line with little choice in the matter) once or twice a week.
We would finger paint, or draw shapes, or cut out stuff. I don't remember liking or disliking it; it was just something else we had to do at school. I seriously doubt anyone could have considered me artistically talented or even inclined.
My clearest memory from that early art class is of realizing one day that, for at least the past few weeks, I hadn't gotten in trouble and been sent to stand in the hall. This, I recall, was cause for celebration and worthy of reflection.
While I was deeply contemplating this great accomplishment, the art teacher angrily interrupted me, pointed out that I was supposed to be working on a paper mache sculpture, and ushered me to the hall, where I was to stand silently, . . . contemplating what I had done. I didn't know the word "irony" back then.
Fortunately, no long term harm resulted from either my lack of interest in or lack of understanding from early art teachers. Eventually, I found myself in a wonderful art history class in high school, taught by one of the best teachers I've encountered, who awoke in me a passion to learn and continue learning about art.
What Is the "Best" Way to Learn Art?
I don't remember ever feeling like I knew how to draw or paint. I still don't -- not as well as I want to. Yet I have an overwhelming desire to express the wonder I feel at things I see. My art education has been and is primarily about learning to see. The more I learn to see, the more intensely I want to create paintings inspired by what I see.
As I start teaching again, I reflect back on my own art education and realize that I have been quite lucky. I was never subjected to any teacher who required me to learn one method to the exclusion of all others.
The art world, and art education in particular have been undergoing major changes all my life. There has not been any single defining standard for art or the teaching of it.
Yet, as I study the issue, I realize this has been the case for not just the past 50 or so years, but the past several hundred! The quest to define the best way for artists to learn or to paint has been going on for centuries, and as best I can tell we aren't a lot closer to it now than we've ever been.
In fact, I think artists have a better chance today of learning what they need in order to express themselves because there is no perceived universally recognized method of teaching art. Instead, we have access to a vastly greater variety of methods, theories, and teachers than at any time in history.
A student can find someone competent to teach just about any method imaginable; from abstract expressionism to extremely disciplined academic classicism, and everything in between or elsewhere.
Every style of art requires diligent mastery of technical skills. Learning to draw and paint like the Renaissance Masters involves years of highly focused training in how to see and render form and color in a specific manor. Impressionism, Surrealism, Photorealism, and all the other "isms" require some kind of training.
Ultimately we can see now more clearly than ever there is no universally accepted framework for teaching or creating art. While there are reactionary attempts to resist today's anarchy and return to some imagined era where they taught art "the right way," such efforts seem at best, futile. In the past we have seen these highly restrictive methods inhibit creativity and ultimately shape the kinds of expression available to artists and buyers.
I believe the incredible buffet of choices available today helps the artist realize and focus on what they want to say and how they want to say it. The writer Henry James set out what he determined were the three main questions about a work of art:
1. What is the artist trying to achieve?
2. Were they successful?
3. Was it worthwhile?
Each artist must answer these questions for themselves. The first two require the artist to decide what they want to say and how they want to say it. Generally this requires a teacher (or teachers) and years of study. Fortunately, we are all only a Google away from teachers of almost any style of art imaginable.
The third question, "Was it worthwhile?" becomes the real kicker. While we can find methods, materials and competent instruction to exactly reproduce a miniature version of the Empire State Building, would we want to? Would we want to spend months, if not years, painting an exact reproduction of the tree in our front yard, complete with every leaf? One could spend years creating an accurate painting of one square foot of a shag carpet! In the end, after acknowledging the enormous outlay of time and effort, the viewer's most rational response would be, "so what?"
So what is the best way to learn how to paint? I haven't a clue. However, after 15 years as a full time artist, I am more thankful than ever that I engineered my own education based on what I most wanted to learn. I found the teachers to help me.
I am honored and flattered to be encountering students who feel I have something to teach them. If you think I might be able to help you learn more about how to see and to express the things you want to say with your art, I'd love to give it a shot.
I've prepared a list of questions to help me know how best to help you:
Let me know How Can I Help You Learn
Just click on the link, answer a few questions, and I will do my best to help.
Thanks! David
