I'm all for improving art education. The problem is when the artist or art consumer is out of school what did they actually learn? Most art consumption I've had has been my own research despite crappy high school art classes where methods of creating art were not taught. We were just marked on whether we took time on it and there was a clear vision of what was to be created. If I wanted to improve my sketching abilities I had to go at least to a book store and buy books that showed methods I could learn.
I was more talking about what in my country is the growing problem of schools simply not having arts departments, period, or having just one or two part-time staff who're only able to offer specialized electives geared towards students interested in careers involving drawing or photography. The only school I ever attended (prior to college) which actually had art or music classes was the private high school I attended for junior and senior year; they had stuff like art history and music theory classes, which I found mindblowing, though even there, those were strictly electives and, sadly, I didn't have time to take them. There was a county-based student orchestra available as an afterschool activity through my elementary/junior high school, which I participated in for 8 years, but that was it.
You seem to be talking about basic visual arts technique classes and your objections to the pedagogical theories underlying the ones you took--I'm not sure I'm really in a position to comment on that. I think I kind of understand what you mean about sketching, because we enrolled our younger son, who has Tourette's and benefits from activities which build his concentration while being naturally enjoyable for him, in a technique-oriented kids' drawing class at the Y, since his elementary school's art classes seem to be more about art as freeform recreation rather than mastery of techniques. Which I don't necessarily think is a "bad" idea, especially for the lower grades, but in his case he obviously loves drawing and is fairly talented at it, so we figured, Why not capitalize on that in a context where he'll get the added pleasure of mastering some techniques that'll enable him to do more if he stays focused.
Do you think technique-oriented classes really suffice to make someone an informed
consumer of art, though? In the US, even at the college level, studio art (or music performance) and art history (or music appreciation) tend to be treated as two separate tracks--there are people with studio art degrees and then there are people with art history degrees, and my impression is they mostly look down on each other (no, not over Marx or anything else 'political'). Music departments are somewhat less like that because most music majors are aiming for careers in music performance, but even there you often get pretty intense debates about how much time students should 'waste' on music history and theory vs. performance. We do have specialized arts colleges, but not many, and I couldn't tell you anything about them.
I'm not sure what you mean. Aren't government grants paid by the taxpayer? Wouldn't that be considered government support?
I wouldn't consider having won one partially government-funded prize for one work to make you a 'government-supported artist,' no, which I thought was what you were complaining about (in Canada).
Yeah like there aren't examples of anti middle class attitudes in art. 
Who are you fooling? It's even cool to be an artist/socialist.
Again, how many professional artists do you know? Art 'scenes' do vary a lot depending on where you are--or at least in the US they do--but I live in an area with a proportionately large concentration of artists, I know quite a few of them, and this just sounds to me like an unrecognizable caricature of the painters and musicians I know.
Where are the conservative artists? Country music? It would probably be very hard for an artist to make art that is reverent to middle class types when irreverence has more "edge".
Mainstream country music is as much about entertainment as it is about music as art, so a lot of it can be derivative in the sense of endlessly recycling certain tropes and cliches expected by fans of the genre. And the same is true of mainstream rock music, of course. They involve an established image and style, they have certain characteristic aesthetic boundaries; that doesn't mean innovation and presence isn't possible for gifted artists working in whichever genre to achieve. You can certainly find overtly political artists in both genres, but to credit either in general with having significant political import is cheapening to real political discourse and participation, which is hardly their reason for being.
Making a pretty painting is "so 19th century".
LOL. Try making a circuit of the commercial art galleries where I live and see what actually sells well. It's not the un-pretty stuff.
It's funny that you mention my "dystopian visions" because there is a website I like that is supportive of classical academic paintings with chip-on-the shoulder articles defending themselves against the modern art circle.
Art Renewal Center� Scholarships and Programs with On-Line Museum
Laughably even here you can find more of the same radical claptrap:
ARC :: Han-Wu Shen :: "Every Word is Truth"
OK, now I'm completely befuddled as to what your point is or was. How is "a website...supportive of classical academic paintings...defending themselves against the modern art circle" an example of "radical claptrap"?
Throughout history artists have been known to be with loose morals and had to be taken with a grain of salt.
Artists, writers and thinkers whose works have endured and had lasting, powerful cultural influence were almost by definition nonconformist and envelope-pushing in their own time, which tends to make one the subject of lots of nasty rumors and allegations, regardless of what the reality is. Plato's mentor Socrates was convicted for corrupting the youth by turning them against the gods of Athens; Thomas Aquinas wound up getting some of his followers--and quite possibly himself, though that's not clear--excommunicated for heresy; Shakespeare could never have won the hand of a respectable wealthy man's daughter in his day because he lived and worked in London's theater district, which 'proper' people considered a cesspool of debauchery, except of course when they felt like catching a boat across the Thames for a little entertainment themselves. Etc., etc., etc. Regardless of whether particular reverence for some great artist, writer or thinker tends to be stereotypically associated with being
'moral' 'conservative' today (since you seem to be treating the two as synonymous here), it's generally unlikely s/he was credited with being an exemplar of high ethical standards at the time.
Wow, you've become completely full of it. So now you know the thoughts of Democrats? What a joke. Face it, you've never been able to name one person that wants to bring it back because no one has made any kind of move to do so. The only reason you bring it back is because Rush made up some strawman argument about how the Dems are going to bring it back and how it's designed to silence the conservative movement. He just made it up and you fell for it. Do us all a favor don't ever use this as an argument again unless you have proof someone is making a move to bring it back.
I don't think I have to be a swami to know how many Democrats feel.
The listenership would want Rush to walk in front of a bus?
You and Oscar disagree on so much, but you love to make your stretches in logic together if it means you get to hate on liberals.
