3 ms·

Not to be rude or unsypathetic, but did you think that spending $80K was going to turn you into an artist?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Ericson2314 4y ago
Just because the person did not have a successful art career doesn't mean they aren't and artist and didn't become a better one.
- zabzonk 4y ago
  of course, anyone can be an artist (or not). my point is that you don't have to spend $80K to potentially fail in becoming one. interesting to see that talent might beat out education is no longer an idea here
  - kdmccormick 4y ago
    Talent beating out education is OBVIOUSLY still an idea here, you're just asking disingenuous, leading questions. Is $80k on its own supposed to turn a non-artist into an artist? No, nobody is saying that. You need to be talented to get admitted in the first place. Would $80k lead to lessons, connections, and experiences that could make an artist's career more successful? Quite possibly. Or not. It's a risky investment: you pay a lot, and maybe it pays off, maybe you break even, maybe you end up behind. I'm not defending the >$80k price tag of art school. I'm saying that it's not irrational for a budding artist to see it as worth the gamble.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
college isn’t quite equivalent to trade school, it wasn’t really about getting a degree in a career field until it became so outrageously expensive that you needed to constantly consider how you’d pay it back
- zabzonk 4y ago
  my point was that "art", while certainly a viable career should you have talent, cannot be taught. a bit like programming, or anything else, when i come to think of it...
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    most of the greatest masters were taught art from childhood, it’s not magic
    - zabzonk 4y ago
      most of the great masters children did not become great artists
      - micromacrofoot 4y ago
        the outcome of their kids doesn’t change the fact that most of them were taught and raised as artists
  - ldhough 4y ago
    "Cannot be taught" is a pretty strong claim. I'm not an artist but it is my understanding that at least some forms of art (classical, sculpting) require at least some degree of instruction, and being in school is probably going to provide easier access to resources like models. A quick google search with artists I'm familiar with (Michelangelo, Caravaggio, da Vinci) confirms all were apprenticed to other artists. Anecdotally I think my programming skills also benefited from a formal education, though there are without a doubt many self-taught developers who far exceed my skill.
  - danielvaughn 4y ago
    If it can't be taught, then the same must be true of many other professions. You need to have a drive for it, sure. And in some sense, quality is more subjective than in other fields. But just because it's more subjective doesn't mean it's entirely subjective - there's a baseline level of knowledge that you really need to know, and that can be taught.
danielvaughn 4y ago
I was a very good artist, and when I was 18 I genuinely believed that college would turn me into a professional artist. I'm not saying this to brag, but I did have a level of talent that I could have turned into a career. So it wasn't a crazy idea at the time. What I found, however, was that the education I received wasn't what I wanted or needed. In my senior year we were still being taught things that I had known since I was a teenager. But by the time I realized how much of a mistake it was, I felt it wouldn't have made sense to quit, because having a degree with 80K in debt is better than having no degree with 60K in debt.
- ZephyrBlu 4y ago
  Yeah, for people who are talented the education portion of university is generally a waste of time at this point. University caters to people who are complete novices when they start the degree.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Just because the person did not have a successful art career doesn't mean they aren't and artist and didn't become a better one.

zabzonk 4y ago
of course, anyone can be an artist (or not). my point is that you don't have to spend $80K to potentially fail in becoming one. interesting to see that talent might beat out education is no longer an idea here
- kdmccormick 4y ago
  Talent beating out education is OBVIOUSLY still an idea here, you're just asking disingenuous, leading questions. Is $80k on its own supposed to turn a non-artist into an artist? No, nobody is saying that. You need to be talented to get admitted in the first place. Would $80k lead to lessons, connections, and experiences that could make an artist's career more successful? Quite possibly. Or not. It's a risky investment: you pay a lot, and maybe it pays off, maybe you break even, maybe you end up behind. I'm not defending the >$80k price tag of art school. I'm saying that it's not irrational for a budding artist to see it as worth the gamble.

micromacrofoot 4y ago

college isn’t quite equivalent to trade school, it wasn’t really about getting a degree in a career field until it became so outrageously expensive that you needed to constantly consider how you’d pay it back

zabzonk 4y ago
my point was that "art", while certainly a viable career should you have talent, cannot be taught. a bit like programming, or anything else, when i come to think of it...
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  most of the greatest masters were taught art from childhood, it’s not magic
  - zabzonk 4y ago
    most of the great masters children did not become great artists
    - micromacrofoot 4y ago
      the outcome of their kids doesn’t change the fact that most of them were taught and raised as artists
- ldhough 4y ago
  "Cannot be taught" is a pretty strong claim. I'm not an artist but it is my understanding that at least some forms of art (classical, sculpting) require at least some degree of instruction, and being in school is probably going to provide easier access to resources like models. A quick google search with artists I'm familiar with (Michelangelo, Caravaggio, da Vinci) confirms all were apprenticed to other artists. Anecdotally I think my programming skills also benefited from a formal education, though there are without a doubt many self-taught developers who far exceed my skill.
- danielvaughn 4y ago
  If it can't be taught, then the same must be true of many other professions. You need to have a drive for it, sure. And in some sense, quality is more subjective than in other fields. But just because it's more subjective doesn't mean it's entirely subjective - there's a baseline level of knowledge that you really need to know, and that can be taught.

danielvaughn 4y ago

I was a very good artist, and when I was 18 I genuinely believed that college would turn me into a professional artist. I'm not saying this to brag, but I did have a level of talent that I could have turned into a career. So it wasn't a crazy idea at the time. What I found, however, was that the education I received wasn't what I wanted or needed. In my senior year we were still being taught things that I had known since I was a teenager. But by the time I realized how much of a mistake it was, I felt it wouldn't have made sense to quit, because having a degree with 80K in debt is better than having no degree with 60K in debt.

ZephyrBlu 4y ago
Yeah, for people who are talented the education portion of university is generally a waste of time at this point. University caters to people who are complete novices when they start the degree.