> That wasn't your point, your point was that you had never heard of it or > were told about it or were taught it. Apparently art schools are teaching > a trade, they teach you how to paint and clean brushes how to weld, how to > stretch canvas, how to develop film and print, they don't show you what > others have done in the past and how they accomplished it, which is just as > important or more so.
Peter, On behalf of all art school graduates present and not, I resent this. How do you know anything about the quality of my art school education? Did you attend yourself? Have you studied art school curricula or observed classes? Are you up on current didactic methodologies and educational strategies? And would you care to match your knowledge of "what others have done in the past" in the field of photography against mine? I have a nice little photography quiz I've developed for hotshots like you, so be careful how you answer this. I'll warrant that I was prepared as well for my field as well as you were prepared for yours. There is a lot that can be criticized in education in every field, and certain fields, like art, lend themselves less well to formal education than certain others. But that's no excuse to dismiss the whole endeavor and insult those who undertook it. Of course, in your next paragraph, you also dismiss most of the art of the past century, so I guess I see where you're coming from. <g> --Mike
