I’m glad I’m a scientist. Of the things I find interesting, I think science (as a pot of knowledge and science as a method of the mind and (mostly) science education) is sound enough and accessible enough that I can be one among countless others pursuing Science fruitfully. Even as an innate loner, I recognize the tremendous value of a compatible, productive, and inspiring intellectual environment. And by and large I am quite happy with it. 21st century science still rocks.
But there’s enough Renaissance in me to want to do everything that interests me, and to do it really well - to write literature and poetry, make music, draw and paint, speak a handful of languages and travel, as complements to my desire to know the natural world, its objects and motions and processes and phenomena, with the toolkit and keen eye of a naturalist, experimental scientist, logician, analyist and integrator. Too much? Yes, too much to do all of them well, and one must choose (and I have). But I regard broad, globe-spanning, universe-traversing interest as a tremendous virtue. It just requires some management skills and a keen sense of purpose to keep it as an organized, useful and rewarding personal menagerie, and not an anarchic jungle of competing interests.
But art education in general today makes ths all very hard. It’s barrier more than an enabler. I’ve always liked drawing and painting, and by employing my mind in the service of specific goals (to make up for my lack of epiphany-like "talent"), I have been able to produce some drawings and paintings that I am proud of. But these were not enabled by receiving instruction in art so much as simply taking the time, making the space, and getting the necessary supplies to actually sit down and do something. Every one of my art teachers in the last 15 years were mainly there to turn on the studio lights, suggest stuff to do, and hold down the fort while I basically did what I wanted.
Unfortunately, what I really wanted was instruction that had a starting place and a goal, instruction that had cohesiveness, progression, and explicit, justifiable and sensical standards, all subserviated to the purpose of the class and the goals of art in general. I wanted instruction I could respect, instruction that paid me back for throwing my full attention and mental energy at a problem. But I never got it, never saw it, never glimpsed it. I shrugged it off as something I wasn’t entitled to anyway, and moved on to classes and disciplines that were more amenable to my "analytic" mind.
Looking back (at my ripe old age of 27…) I think it’s a tragedy that art instruction is the way it is today, because I know it didn’t used to be that way, and that it’s not necessary. In fact, I think the state of art instruction today is counterproductive for individuals, for the health of the discipline, and for the quality of work generally produced today.
I have a cousin about to graduate high school who is interested in art. She came into this world wanting to be a doctor, I think she toyed with being an engineer around her one-decade mark, and for the last several years has put a fair bit of effort into painting. Who knows if she’ll change her mind again. But I think the best way to know for sure is to dive in, to really grasp what the field is about, what it takes to "Do Art", and to evaluate one’s own goals, degree of motivation, and strengths and weaknesses in a productive and rewarding setting.
So, while I’m not an artist by any stretch of the imagination, I am art-interested, and I have fairly integrated views on education, instruction, the choice of career and it’s practice and execution, so I’m excited by a crop independent, high-quality art studios in this country that train artists rationally, skillfully, and purposefully. They generally teach art as the classic artists were taught - such as Michaelangelo, Raphael and DaVinci on up to the great portrait artists of the 1800s. Apparently this sort of art education remained till the early 20th century even while its graduates became impressionists, expressionists, cubists, surrealists and the like into the first quarter of the 20th century. Then the modernists became (or spawned) the instructors of the 20th century, and when combined with new approaches and philosophies in education, art instruction morphed into its present form.
Here are the studios, ateliers, and instructors I have come across online. They have been recommended by people and artists I respect, but I’ve never taken a class or met the instructor or anything. Still, it’s exciting to know they exist. That way, when I become the first billionaire paleobiologist, I’ll have a wide selection of high-quality art to populate my private mountain villa.
The Barnestone Studios. Coply, PA. I especially liked the interview clips where Barnestone shares his views on … most things having to do with art and art education.
The Ryder Studio. Santa Fe, NM. Cameras don’t capture people this well.
The Academy of Realist Art. Toronto, Canada.
The Atelier School of Classical Realism. Oakland, CA. Argh, and in my own backyard practically!
Mims Studios. Southern Pines, NC.
The Grand Central Academy of Art. New York, NY.
[Hat tip to a poster on the HBList, and artist Brian Larsen’s blog.]
li>