Terry wrote: > I was in art school in the early 70s. The formal classes were > taught...formally, and I felt I learned a lot. But once I got into the higher > studio painting classes, we were left to our own devices. We could paint > whatever we wanted. BUT, at the critiques- that's where we learned about the > specifics. Not only classical things like composition, color, etc., but we > had to defend/explain the reason for our paintings- what problems we were > trying to figure out. WHY we were painting that particular piece and how it > related to the previous pieces...and what we might do in our next.
My classes were never very formal - maybe it was an "out west," post-hippie, more laid back thing at that time ;-) We were left to our own devices from the beginning but always did critiques. The teaching approach I experienced was more oriented toward concepts and creative problem-solving. My school was very good in that repsect - but VERY lite on technical aspects, which I did not like. They did present many technical aspects which applied to any media in the design classes, however, and required endless semesters of art history. I could have gone to a pure art school but wanted the broader university experience, so something was probably lost and something gained. Joni may have been too busy with her college concert performances in art school, and may have diverted her focus somewhat from her painting, too. Kakki
