What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Art Cannot Be Taught: A Handbook for Art Students by James Elkins
In this smart survival guide for students and teachers -- the only book of its kind -- James Elkins examines the "curious endeavor to teach the unteachable" that is generally known as college-level art instruction.Elkins traces the development (or invention) of the modern art school and considers how issues such as the question of core curriculum and the intellectual isolation of art schools affect the teaching and learning of art. He also addresses the phenomenon of art critiques as a microcosm for teaching art as a whole and dissects real-life critiques, highlighting presuppositions and dynamics that make them confusing and suggesting ways to make them more helpful.Elkins's no-nonsense approach clears away the assumptions about art instruction that are not borne out by classroom practice. For example, he notes that despite much talk about instilling visual acuity and teaching technique, in practice neither teachers nor students behave as if those were their principal goals. He addresses the absurdity of pretending that sexual issues are absent from life-drawing classes and questions the practice of holding up great masters and masterpieces as models for students capable of producing only mediocre art. He also discusses types of art -- including art that takes time to complete and art that isn't serious -- that cannot be learned in studio art classes.Elkins's incisive commentary illuminates the experience of learning art for those involved in it, while opening an intriguing window for those outside the discipline.
Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
63 people are currently reading
2595 people want to read
About the author
James Elkins
101 books210 followersJames Elkins (1955 – present) is an art historian and art critic. He is E.C. Chadbourne Chair of art history, theory, and criticism at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. He also coordinates the Stone Summer Theory Institute, a short term school on contemporary art history based at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
February 24, 2018
Elkins, muito provavelmente, sofria do chamado "síndrome do impostor" quando escreveu este livro, "Why Art Cannot Be Taught" (2001), diagnóstico meu. Ou seja, sentia-se incapaz de internalizar os seus feitos enquanto professor, incapaz de dar conta dos resultados do seu trabalho com os seus alunos, daí que a frustração tenha resultado neste livro. E digo isto no passado, porque passando pelo seu site online, percebemos que, em parte, mudou depois de opinião. Talvez o facto de o livro não ter sido muito bem recebido na altura, por exemplo a sua própria Universidade recusou-se a publicar o manuscrito, o tenha levado a refletir sobre o que queria realmente dizer quando o escreveu, já que o livro espremido, não diz nada.
Não posso dizer que o livro não vale sequer o seu custo, vale, os dois primeiros capítulos em que Elkins discorre sobre a história das escolas de artes ao longo dos últimos séculos, e discute as questões em redor dos currículos nucleares, são muito interessantes, ocupando quase toda a primeira metade do livro. O problema surge, na segunda parte, quando Elkins olha para o presente daquilo em que se tornou a escola superior de artes, tecendo considerações sobre a sua atual inconsequência, manifestando-se totalmente incapaz de propor qualquer alteração. Estando tudo mal, segundo Elkins, não há nada que possamos fazer, resta-nos continuar a fazer de conta que estamos a ensinar!
“The idea of teaching art is irreparably irrational. We do not teach because we do not know when or how we teach.” (p.189)
Ora existem aqui vários problemas de base: a confusão, propositada ou não, entre processos técnicos e criatividade; a ausência de conhecimento sobre os processos cognitivos; e a ausência de conhecimento sobre os processos sociais criativos.
O primeiro ponto é talvez o mais relevante já que está na base desde logo do próprio título. Se olharmos a arte do ponto de vista do resultado, enquanto produtora de artefactos expressivos e originais, então claramente não é possível ensinar arte a ninguém, desde logo porque estes resultados, enquanto tais, não dependem apenas dos criadores, mas também da interpretação dos recetores dos mesmos. Por exemplo, o mercado da arte que todos conhecemos, e que vende obras por valores incalculáveis não se regula pela avaliação dos objetos em si, mas antes pela avaliação de um conjunto de críticos que atribuem valor ou não a uma obra. Quando muito, poderíamos ensinar os artistas a comunicar ideias de modo a garantir o interesse desses críticos, seguindo as mesmas lógicas que utilizamos no ensino da criação de entretenimento ou de publicidade. Mas se queremos ensiná-los a ser diferentes, a quebrar convenções, a subverter o status quo, aí entramos num território bastante mais complexo, para o qual podemos, de modo metafórico, abrir janelas, mas não podemos apresentar o caminho, já que ele é individual e construído no tempo conjuntamente com a sociedade.
Mas o ensino de arte não tem de ser isto, apesar de ter sido neste sentido que convergiu ao longo do último século, nomeadamente depois da revolução modernista, como fica evidenciado na apresentação das várias escolas de ensino de artes. Compreendendo quem ainda defende esta visão da arte, e consequente ensino da arte, tenho dúvidas em aceitá-la, exatamente por aquilo que fica demonstrado neste livro de Elkins, já que conduz o ensino a um beco sem saída, como ilustra Clowes abaixo:
[imagem - https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.pt/...]
"If you must go to art school" (1991), in Eightball 7, de Daniel Clowe. (Elkins, 2001:87)
Neste sentido, a criação artística é um processo, como qualquer outro processo aplicado, que carece de conhecimento especializado, e é esse conhecimento, as técnicas, que o ensino pode ensinar. Com isto não se defende aqui um ensino profissionalizante a um nível superior, mas defende-se que apenas com muito conhecimento e domínio técnico se pode chegar à superação e consequente subversão. Como diz Saramago
“A escola deveria ensinar a ouvir. Cabe-lhe ensinar o aluno a escrever corretamente e também explicar por que as regras são assim, e não de outra maneira. Mas a escola não será o lugar onde se subverte e revoluciona a estrutura da língua. Essa tarefa pertence aos escritores, se estes consideram que têm motivos para o fazer. (…) Os estilos saem do ovo da sua própria necessidade. Ensine-se a pensar claro e a escrita será clara. (…) A escola não é o lugar em que se subverte a estrutura da língua porque ela não tem preparação própria suficiente para se arriscar nessa aventura. As regras são como os sinais de trânsito numa estrada. Estão ali para orientar e dar segurança ao condutor. Claro que é possível viajar por uma rodovia onde não haja sinais de trânsito, mas para isso é indispensável ser um bom condutor. Aí está a diferença.”
José Saramago (2003)
As regras são a técnica que se pode ensinar, mas também o ouvir e o pensar, o crescer enquanto indivíduo consciente do mundo que o rodeia. E é no mínimo caricato, para não dizer algo pior, que Elkins tente comparações entre a Arte e a Física, e venha falar de testes que dão conta do que efetivamente o aluno aprendeu, e não olhe para as outras artes mesmo ao lado das Visuais, tais como a Música ou a Dança. Sendo a avaliação nesses ramos tão subjetiva como é em qualquer outra arte, não deixa de conter um enorme espaço para a objetividade, que é assegurada pelo corpo de praticantes da mesma. A distinção entre um performer medíocre e um bom é discernível com critérios objetivos, claro que já não poderemos dizer o mesmo, entre um muito bom e um excelente. Mas aqui eu questiono, e onde no mundo em que vivemos, é que isso é possível de ser distinguido? Mesmo no campo da ciência, quando submeto uma proposta de investigação para financiamento, a avaliação que é realizada sobre a mesma, desde que ela atinja os tais parâmetros mínimos objetivos de qualidade, é profundamente subjectiva.
Mas isto é confundir a realidade com o ensino. A educação não foi inventada para criar seres profissionais, prontos a debitar aquilo que as sociedades necessitam. A educação existe para acelerar o processo de adaptação às realidades, e acima de tudo para garantir as mesmas hipóteses, em termos cognitivos a todos, mas é apenas isso. Depois cabe a cada indivíduo encontrar-se, definir-se, e destacar-se. Por isso não cabe a um curso superior criar um artista, tanto como não cabe criar um médico ou um advogado, que só podem afirmar sê-los, depois de cumprirem uma série de requisitos no mundo real, exterior à rede de segurança proporcionada pela escola.
Daí que afirmar, “It does not make sense to try to understand how art is taught.” (p.190) é não só ridículo, mas acima de tudo uma acomodação àquilo que se tem, mesmo não concordando com o que se tem. Desde logo não podia ser dado exemplo pior a um aluno, de artes ou qualquer outra área, do que dizer-lhe que “não vale a pena”. Por outro lado, é a demonstração de que Elkins nunca parou um minuto para estudar matérias fora do seu próprio domínio. Porque não faltam trabalhos no domínio da Educação, mas mesmo que não quisesse entrar por aí, se tivesse pelo menos tentado compreender os seres-humanos com quem tem de lidar todos os dias, ou seja a psicologia dos seus alunos, teria estudado um pouco sobre ciência cognitiva, procurando perceber de que é feita a motivação humana, assim como as diferenças entre talento, inspiração e trabalho, e teria conseguido ver um mundo completamente diferente. No fundo, em vez de ter passado todo o tempo a questionar a arte pela arte, devia ter parado para ouvir, ler e questionar a realidade que o rodeia.
Análise publicada no VI
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.pt/...
Não posso dizer que o livro não vale sequer o seu custo, vale, os dois primeiros capítulos em que Elkins discorre sobre a história das escolas de artes ao longo dos últimos séculos, e discute as questões em redor dos currículos nucleares, são muito interessantes, ocupando quase toda a primeira metade do livro. O problema surge, na segunda parte, quando Elkins olha para o presente daquilo em que se tornou a escola superior de artes, tecendo considerações sobre a sua atual inconsequência, manifestando-se totalmente incapaz de propor qualquer alteração. Estando tudo mal, segundo Elkins, não há nada que possamos fazer, resta-nos continuar a fazer de conta que estamos a ensinar!
“The idea of teaching art is irreparably irrational. We do not teach because we do not know when or how we teach.” (p.189)
Ora existem aqui vários problemas de base: a confusão, propositada ou não, entre processos técnicos e criatividade; a ausência de conhecimento sobre os processos cognitivos; e a ausência de conhecimento sobre os processos sociais criativos.
O primeiro ponto é talvez o mais relevante já que está na base desde logo do próprio título. Se olharmos a arte do ponto de vista do resultado, enquanto produtora de artefactos expressivos e originais, então claramente não é possível ensinar arte a ninguém, desde logo porque estes resultados, enquanto tais, não dependem apenas dos criadores, mas também da interpretação dos recetores dos mesmos. Por exemplo, o mercado da arte que todos conhecemos, e que vende obras por valores incalculáveis não se regula pela avaliação dos objetos em si, mas antes pela avaliação de um conjunto de críticos que atribuem valor ou não a uma obra. Quando muito, poderíamos ensinar os artistas a comunicar ideias de modo a garantir o interesse desses críticos, seguindo as mesmas lógicas que utilizamos no ensino da criação de entretenimento ou de publicidade. Mas se queremos ensiná-los a ser diferentes, a quebrar convenções, a subverter o status quo, aí entramos num território bastante mais complexo, para o qual podemos, de modo metafórico, abrir janelas, mas não podemos apresentar o caminho, já que ele é individual e construído no tempo conjuntamente com a sociedade.
Mas o ensino de arte não tem de ser isto, apesar de ter sido neste sentido que convergiu ao longo do último século, nomeadamente depois da revolução modernista, como fica evidenciado na apresentação das várias escolas de ensino de artes. Compreendendo quem ainda defende esta visão da arte, e consequente ensino da arte, tenho dúvidas em aceitá-la, exatamente por aquilo que fica demonstrado neste livro de Elkins, já que conduz o ensino a um beco sem saída, como ilustra Clowes abaixo:
[imagem - https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.pt/...]
"If you must go to art school" (1991), in Eightball 7, de Daniel Clowe. (Elkins, 2001:87)
Neste sentido, a criação artística é um processo, como qualquer outro processo aplicado, que carece de conhecimento especializado, e é esse conhecimento, as técnicas, que o ensino pode ensinar. Com isto não se defende aqui um ensino profissionalizante a um nível superior, mas defende-se que apenas com muito conhecimento e domínio técnico se pode chegar à superação e consequente subversão. Como diz Saramago
“A escola deveria ensinar a ouvir. Cabe-lhe ensinar o aluno a escrever corretamente e também explicar por que as regras são assim, e não de outra maneira. Mas a escola não será o lugar onde se subverte e revoluciona a estrutura da língua. Essa tarefa pertence aos escritores, se estes consideram que têm motivos para o fazer. (…) Os estilos saem do ovo da sua própria necessidade. Ensine-se a pensar claro e a escrita será clara. (…) A escola não é o lugar em que se subverte a estrutura da língua porque ela não tem preparação própria suficiente para se arriscar nessa aventura. As regras são como os sinais de trânsito numa estrada. Estão ali para orientar e dar segurança ao condutor. Claro que é possível viajar por uma rodovia onde não haja sinais de trânsito, mas para isso é indispensável ser um bom condutor. Aí está a diferença.”
José Saramago (2003)
As regras são a técnica que se pode ensinar, mas também o ouvir e o pensar, o crescer enquanto indivíduo consciente do mundo que o rodeia. E é no mínimo caricato, para não dizer algo pior, que Elkins tente comparações entre a Arte e a Física, e venha falar de testes que dão conta do que efetivamente o aluno aprendeu, e não olhe para as outras artes mesmo ao lado das Visuais, tais como a Música ou a Dança. Sendo a avaliação nesses ramos tão subjetiva como é em qualquer outra arte, não deixa de conter um enorme espaço para a objetividade, que é assegurada pelo corpo de praticantes da mesma. A distinção entre um performer medíocre e um bom é discernível com critérios objetivos, claro que já não poderemos dizer o mesmo, entre um muito bom e um excelente. Mas aqui eu questiono, e onde no mundo em que vivemos, é que isso é possível de ser distinguido? Mesmo no campo da ciência, quando submeto uma proposta de investigação para financiamento, a avaliação que é realizada sobre a mesma, desde que ela atinja os tais parâmetros mínimos objetivos de qualidade, é profundamente subjectiva.
Mas isto é confundir a realidade com o ensino. A educação não foi inventada para criar seres profissionais, prontos a debitar aquilo que as sociedades necessitam. A educação existe para acelerar o processo de adaptação às realidades, e acima de tudo para garantir as mesmas hipóteses, em termos cognitivos a todos, mas é apenas isso. Depois cabe a cada indivíduo encontrar-se, definir-se, e destacar-se. Por isso não cabe a um curso superior criar um artista, tanto como não cabe criar um médico ou um advogado, que só podem afirmar sê-los, depois de cumprirem uma série de requisitos no mundo real, exterior à rede de segurança proporcionada pela escola.
Daí que afirmar, “It does not make sense to try to understand how art is taught.” (p.190) é não só ridículo, mas acima de tudo uma acomodação àquilo que se tem, mesmo não concordando com o que se tem. Desde logo não podia ser dado exemplo pior a um aluno, de artes ou qualquer outra área, do que dizer-lhe que “não vale a pena”. Por outro lado, é a demonstração de que Elkins nunca parou um minuto para estudar matérias fora do seu próprio domínio. Porque não faltam trabalhos no domínio da Educação, mas mesmo que não quisesse entrar por aí, se tivesse pelo menos tentado compreender os seres-humanos com quem tem de lidar todos os dias, ou seja a psicologia dos seus alunos, teria estudado um pouco sobre ciência cognitiva, procurando perceber de que é feita a motivação humana, assim como as diferenças entre talento, inspiração e trabalho, e teria conseguido ver um mundo completamente diferente. No fundo, em vez de ter passado todo o tempo a questionar a arte pela arte, devia ter parado para ouvir, ler e questionar a realidade que o rodeia.
Análise publicada no VI
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.pt/...
April 21, 2013
As an artist and art educator, I want to start by stating that I really wanted to enjoy this book. Some of its virtues include very interesting approaches to critiques that I would love to try: secretly placing someone else's piece among a series of your own, having someone else "play" you as the artist, including one work you absolutely hate, and/or emulating a famous artist without naming them. This was fascinating, although it took most of the book to get there.
In 2013, it's very difficult to read a book in which all the students are unnamed "she"s and nearly all the professors and artists named are male. This is problematic, and should probably be addressed in a book about the issues of why or why not art can be taught.
The author also proposes critique as a sort of "seduction", with examples where the professor "seduces" the student to agree that their work will fall apart. Surely a better metaphor must exist for this sort of critique? If not, I sincerely feel for the author's wife or partner...
Putting these rather large issues aside, there are some major difficulties throughout the book. The author suggests storytelling as a framework for critiquing and discussing art. This is interesting. He summarizes his point by noting that he loved his grandmother's stories growing up, until he realized they were a way of "rehearsing her unhappiness" at which point he no longer was interested in hearing them. How is this rehearsal different than the process of making art? Or different than talking about making art? Points like these are strange and almost nonsensical, or simply horrible. As the author summarizes: "People tend to be less interesting when I understand their stories." Likewise, your book becomes less interesting when we comprehend your personality...
After all this, the curiously short (less than two page) conclusion doesn't leave us with much else.
In 2013, it's very difficult to read a book in which all the students are unnamed "she"s and nearly all the professors and artists named are male. This is problematic, and should probably be addressed in a book about the issues of why or why not art can be taught.
The author also proposes critique as a sort of "seduction", with examples where the professor "seduces" the student to agree that their work will fall apart. Surely a better metaphor must exist for this sort of critique? If not, I sincerely feel for the author's wife or partner...
Putting these rather large issues aside, there are some major difficulties throughout the book. The author suggests storytelling as a framework for critiquing and discussing art. This is interesting. He summarizes his point by noting that he loved his grandmother's stories growing up, until he realized they were a way of "rehearsing her unhappiness" at which point he no longer was interested in hearing them. How is this rehearsal different than the process of making art? Or different than talking about making art? Points like these are strange and almost nonsensical, or simply horrible. As the author summarizes: "People tend to be less interesting when I understand their stories." Likewise, your book becomes less interesting when we comprehend your personality...
After all this, the curiously short (less than two page) conclusion doesn't leave us with much else.
April 22, 2014
I always like this guy's books. I tend to agree with him, but I always walk away from them asking, "What was the point of that?". Then I get back to work.
July 31, 2007
James Elkins has proven to be the leading diagnostician of art world follies. This work has become a small classic among artists working in the academic side of studio arts and should be required reading for anyone considering a BFA or MFA in visual art. Based upon his experiences as a student and professor at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Elkins offers a wide array of anecdotes and analyses that will ring all too true to those of us who have waded the wild waters of art school. It is true, art cannot be taught.
September 30, 2012
My favorite quote
"It is a simple, inescapable fact that looking at a life model is a charged experience. No matter how used to it you get- and studio instructors can persuade themselves, over the course of years, that models really are nothing but interesting furniture- it still possesses sexual and social overtones. The model is "objectified," used as an example (as in medical school or hospital rounds- and we might also think of prisoner-of-war camps), and his or her personality is erased or drastically simplified (as in mass-media pornography). The condescension, emotional distancing, and "master-slave" relation are similar in all three institutions....(most) teachers do not acknowledge the overtones."
my link text
"It is a simple, inescapable fact that looking at a life model is a charged experience. No matter how used to it you get- and studio instructors can persuade themselves, over the course of years, that models really are nothing but interesting furniture- it still possesses sexual and social overtones. The model is "objectified," used as an example (as in medical school or hospital rounds- and we might also think of prisoner-of-war camps), and his or her personality is erased or drastically simplified (as in mass-media pornography). The condescension, emotional distancing, and "master-slave" relation are similar in all three institutions....(most) teachers do not acknowledge the overtones."
my link text
May 5, 2012
I took forever to get into this. I think I got it as a (requested) Christmas gift years ago, but I just couldn't get into it.
As it was, I read the first 2/3 and then got bogged down. I finally finished it and I'm not sure how important that last 3rd really was.
I'm an art instructor at a community college, so the book isn't exactly aimed at me. It says on the cover it is for art students, meaning BFA or MFA students. However, even as an MFA student, the things referred to in the book, particularly the style of critique referred to, weren't my experience.
The most interesting part of the book was the history of art education at the start. I'm a fan of history, so this is natural. The history started with Classical Greek and moved through the Middle Ages, Renaissance, Baroque, Romanticism and modern art teaching. It was a brief history, interesting but not particularly in depth. As most art education/art history in my educational experience (when I haven't sought out alternatives) the history was Western with minimal references to Asian, African, Native American or any other non-Western, not standard experience. But it was also clear the reason, the book was about our current art educational system and that, itself, doesn't give much weight to non-western ideas.
Most of the book talked critiques. What they are, why they're like that. The premise of the title is, as you might guess, that art can't be taught. The author explores this idea a bit, but doesn't do much with it other than discuss some arguments about why this might or might not be true. I personally don't find his argument very compelling, but the author doesn't seem to care.
As an instructor (and maybe a student), the discussion of history and critiques is interesting and there are bits that might be useful to consider in my own classes. However, I wouldn't urge someone to rush out and buy this for themselves. If you want my copy, I can loan it to you.
As it was, I read the first 2/3 and then got bogged down. I finally finished it and I'm not sure how important that last 3rd really was.
I'm an art instructor at a community college, so the book isn't exactly aimed at me. It says on the cover it is for art students, meaning BFA or MFA students. However, even as an MFA student, the things referred to in the book, particularly the style of critique referred to, weren't my experience.
The most interesting part of the book was the history of art education at the start. I'm a fan of history, so this is natural. The history started with Classical Greek and moved through the Middle Ages, Renaissance, Baroque, Romanticism and modern art teaching. It was a brief history, interesting but not particularly in depth. As most art education/art history in my educational experience (when I haven't sought out alternatives) the history was Western with minimal references to Asian, African, Native American or any other non-Western, not standard experience. But it was also clear the reason, the book was about our current art educational system and that, itself, doesn't give much weight to non-western ideas.
Most of the book talked critiques. What they are, why they're like that. The premise of the title is, as you might guess, that art can't be taught. The author explores this idea a bit, but doesn't do much with it other than discuss some arguments about why this might or might not be true. I personally don't find his argument very compelling, but the author doesn't seem to care.
As an instructor (and maybe a student), the discussion of history and critiques is interesting and there are bits that might be useful to consider in my own classes. However, I wouldn't urge someone to rush out and buy this for themselves. If you want my copy, I can loan it to you.
August 18, 2014
Elkins' premise, that art cannot be taught, is correct, but in his final assessment, he states that we have no other choice but to continue to instruct art students the same way.
I am grateful to Elkins for identifying the problem, but his lack of solution makes me wonder why he bothered to write a book.
Art cannot be taught, but art students can be coached. As a professional art coach, I can say enthusiastically that people can be coached to growth, even if they cannot be taught to be artists. What this means is that each one, to whatever extent they are naturally gifted with the potential of an artist, can succeed in wringing the most out of that natural potential.
And if they are not an "artist" by Elkins' definition, then a good coach would help them identify that fact and move on to a profession or calling to which they are more suited.
Four stars for articulating the problem, but no star for identifying a way to be helpful to people.
I am grateful to Elkins for identifying the problem, but his lack of solution makes me wonder why he bothered to write a book.
Art cannot be taught, but art students can be coached. As a professional art coach, I can say enthusiastically that people can be coached to growth, even if they cannot be taught to be artists. What this means is that each one, to whatever extent they are naturally gifted with the potential of an artist, can succeed in wringing the most out of that natural potential.
And if they are not an "artist" by Elkins' definition, then a good coach would help them identify that fact and move on to a profession or calling to which they are more suited.
Four stars for articulating the problem, but no star for identifying a way to be helpful to people.
July 11, 2015
Textbook for my Teaching Practicum – jury's still out as to what I actually think, but it's an okay book? I dunno, might do another review after my second reading since I'm so ambivalent.
Read
September 24, 2023Fundamental. Should be a mandatory initial reading in every single advanced art class. Welcome to the dark expanse! It's terrifying and also so deeply exciting here!
May 13, 2020
Generally speaking, Elkins conveyed a strong, scientific attempt of rationalising what is fundamentally irrational, i.e. art practice. Although he addresses and analyses properly several key issues of the whole modern education (and artistic education in particular) in historical, political and psychological contexts, and from this point it would be a good idea to make the questions raised in this book a focal point of study in the very beginning of higher artistic education, instead of following some relativist or absolutist methods of what is considered “basic courses”, as he states, — this would probably nurture a more critical attitude to one’s vocation and would make an appropriate education possible.
Beside this, Elkins shows a straight, unbiased manner of setting out his thoughts, which cannot be overestimated for the art critique and also makes reading of this book pleasantly painful, as it claryfies many things. Therefore I can understand people leaving negative feedbacks on this book: noone ever wanted to face bare truth about how things really are as it enacts depression and other conditions far from productive. But what if consider this plight differently, as if it were a starting point of actual learning?
According to Kant:
"Experience of beauty affords no kind of knowledge: historical, scientific, or philosophical. It can be called true because it makes us more aware of our mental activity."
As follows, only technical aspects of art can be taught, including some specific logical and other mental techniques, and this is what Elkins says. In fact, art itself can only be experienced, but not taught. How can we teach anyone being oneself?
Beside this, Elkins shows a straight, unbiased manner of setting out his thoughts, which cannot be overestimated for the art critique and also makes reading of this book pleasantly painful, as it claryfies many things. Therefore I can understand people leaving negative feedbacks on this book: noone ever wanted to face bare truth about how things really are as it enacts depression and other conditions far from productive. But what if consider this plight differently, as if it were a starting point of actual learning?
According to Kant:
"Experience of beauty affords no kind of knowledge: historical, scientific, or philosophical. It can be called true because it makes us more aware of our mental activity."
As follows, only technical aspects of art can be taught, including some specific logical and other mental techniques, and this is what Elkins says. In fact, art itself can only be experienced, but not taught. How can we teach anyone being oneself?
June 29, 2011
James Elkins is a good writer, but even a better speaker (I should say, I enjoy the way he speaks, If he were to actually be sized up for his speaking abilities, compared to great orators of the past, he would probably be categorized by many as an intellectual turd.) But I really like the way he speaks, I have had the opportunity on a few occasions and there are a few good interviews with him on badatsports.com - and this book of all the books of his I have read, is his most conversational. In fact there is a whole section called Conversations. It is an analysis of art education, how art could, should, can't, is attempted to be taught. He basically takes what started out as informal conversations with his collegues and students (Elkins teaches at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago) about art education and put it into a book, more to get people talking and thinking about the issues and not so much a solution.
Anyways. If you are an art student, thinking about becoming an art student, thinking about going back to school for an MFA (me?) then this is a good book to read.
Anyways. If you are an art student, thinking about becoming an art student, thinking about going back to school for an MFA (me?) then this is a good book to read.
June 19, 2007
Nothing miraculous here. Some good history of the pedagogy of art, some interesting thought on styles of critique.
July 20, 2011
The discussion of the limitations of critique is especially helpful.
August 20, 2012
I get it.
April 15, 2025
The only thing hotter than this weather is the way you're looking at me.
December 7, 2023
Comprehensive to the extent that it can be, given that the topic is, in the author’s own metaphor, like a cave that is yet without electric lighting. A good jumping off point for further conversation
March 10, 2017
πρεπει οσοι ασχολουνται με την τεχνη να το διαβασουν
Read
July 15, 2008Yes, the title is intended to provoke. The chapter of this book that explores historical methods of teaching art was so stimulating that I almost had to lie down to recover--it explains so much of what you see in museums. Such as how in Renaissance academies, students studied the body partly to understand how emotions (humility, grief, etc.) are expressed in the human face and human gesture, and studied drapery etc. as objects, while in the modern period students studied the body as an object. Most of the book deals with studio art classes, and I know I was at a disadvantage as a reader because I haven’t taken them. Still, I did find food for thought about artmaking and, in particular, the limited usefulness of criticism; the way the author tells it, the critique process sounds potentially Kafkaesque.
March 29, 2008
I enjoyed this book, but obviously felt it would have been more useful if I was a student, or a colleg professor. I thought the book provided a good discussion of the inability to teach and even define art. The book starts with a brief history of art education from medieval workshops to modern day colleges. Next is a section called Conversations, or Questions raised in art school. Next is Theories, or the lack thereof, about art education. The section called Critques explores the central method of college level art instruction. Next Elkins suggests ways to better understand and benefit from critiques. I agree that what makes art unable to be taught is also what makes it interesting and important.
September 10, 2010
This book goes over the history of art schools/art education. His notes are not that interesting, and it gets a bit thick sometimes--I think he could have used a little more editing. However, it is very instructional about how art education has developed, especially since the Renaissance.
...I'm still reading it, but stalled due to my may classes. I'm taking art classes, and so it's a little weird to read a book about how 'art' can't be taught. I think you cannot be taught how to be an artist, but you can be taught ways that people have worked previously, and learn from what others have done. Perhaps.
...I'm still reading it, but stalled due to my may classes. I'm taking art classes, and so it's a little weird to read a book about how 'art' can't be taught. I think you cannot be taught how to be an artist, but you can be taught ways that people have worked previously, and learn from what others have done. Perhaps.
December 4, 2012
Starting from a skeptical position, this excellent book describes the challenges and joys of teaching art. The author outlines the history of art education, noted that there has never been a "traditional" approach, methods and pedagogy involving teaching art has constantly evolved and changed with each era. Smartly, Mr. Elkins dispenses with some of the common perceptions about art school and lays out what is and what is not possible to teach in school. It also features a great section analyzing classroom critiques which has now been expanded and republished as its own book. Highly recommended for any art educator or student.
February 8, 2012
I most appreciated Elkins' process of detailing the history of art schooling. It's very insightful to recognize that, no matter how we like to believe we're moving forward, so much of our training is bound in the past. Why can't art be taught? Because it's deeper than spoken language. Elkins showed that quite clearly in his exposés of The Critique. What I would like to see taught in the art schools is skilled workmanship and technique, the ability to communicate personal revelation, and most importantly: respect for the other's process. Paint others as you would have them paint you ;0"
April 19, 2016
This is an unusual subject especially for an art teacher to tackle. The best chapter is the first, an informative historical review of art instruction that somewhat explains the state of things today. For the rest, Elkins has convinced me that art cannot be taught because no one understands what they're doing. This is not unknown in human endeavors. I used to feel sorry that I didn't get to go to art school, but not any more.
July 12, 2020
This is a really great book - you might even say, for the right audience, important. Elkins asks whether all this stuff we do as teachers of art is really teaching, if, as the title asks, Art can even be taught. I couldn´t help thinking, everytime he reinforced the point, that no, no in the traditional way; in what Paolo Freire called the "banking of information." But in a new approach to pedagogy, yes, it´s teaching of the best kind.
April 3, 2008
This book covers a rapid history of art education and then concentrates on the ambiguous experience of the critique and how to take more from this experience. Elkins brings up a very basic but profound idea: following judgement statements to their source as "axiomatic values" in order to understand the core values of one's community and oneself--by simply asking 'why, why, why'.
xx-dnf-skim-reference
June 28, 2016Oops. "Wishing doesn't make it so." Wanting this book to be what I wanted to be didn't make it so... it really is for art teachers, art students, and possibly art critics, artists, and graduates of art school. As far as I could tell from a read of the intro. and a light skim, worthless for members of the public like me, no matter how hard we're willing to work towards a better understanding.
June 12, 2010
Perhaps unintentionally funny, but an especially good guide to navigating critiques, why is a critique like a legal process, or like a seduction, or why do they digress so much? Elkins uses verbatim recordings of crits. For everyone who has gone, or will go to art school.
Currently reading
October 10, 2012I am having to read this book for my Internship at school and it's a very interesting book. Much more technical than I thought it would be. But for anyone interested in the art field I think it's well worth reading.
January 21, 2009
An excellent prising apart of the portentous Art School system of the last twenty or thirty years.
November 21, 2012
Good inquiry into art, art talk and art making. The title should be read as a question
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews