Should art schools teach the fundamental skills of drawing and painting from observation?
Seems obvious, right? But not everyone thinks so.
"Drawing from observation and nature and commonly from the life model has been actively discouraged,' says Andy Pankhurst, an artist who teaches at various institutions including the Royal Drawing School, which offers a 'skills-based' foundation course (life drawing is compulsory in the first two terms). While teaching at Slade during the early 00s, students told him they were no longer coming to his life drawing class because other tutors had told them if they did, they would turn into vegetables. 'They were being told that working from observation meant you had no concept or ideas, when nothing could be further from the truth.'"
King Lear, Act I, Scene I (1897-98) By Edwin Austin Abbey -
Metropolitan Museum of Art, Public Domain, Link
Are there reasonable arguments for this position?
Some art teachers caution against a one-size-fits-all approach. The fundamental skills that artists need to succeed can vary a lot depending on the medium and the intent. For instance, a sculptor might prioritize three-dimensional form over perspective, while a digital artist may approach color differently than a traditional painter. Fundamental drawing and painting skills in digital and analog realms are very different.
Some contemporary programs have shifted toward emphasizing conceptual development, storytelling, and personal expression. People who doubt the value of traditional observational training argue that a rigid focus on technical skills can stifle creativity and discourage exploration of new ideas or media.
Questions for discussion
Should an art school have a shared set of standards or values, and what should those standards be?
Have you ever seen a situation where the training of a narrow set of observational skills actually stultified the imagination?
Is there a way to teach a well-rounded set of skills that are better suited to the needs of artists in today’s world?
Do the “fundamentals” courses that are actually taught in contemporary art schools really address the training of the skills graduates need? If not, what skills should they address?
Why does our contemporary artistic culture allow for shared standards in music conservatories, such as Julliard, Bard, or Eastman, but not in art schools?
Some argue that the curriculum should embrace not only painting, but also sculpture, architecture, print-making, lettering, and graphic design. For those of you who are working professionals, how have those studies equipped you for a successful career?
Should students be allowed to completely design their own course of study, or is it better for them to follow the core curriculum?
Quote from the Guardian: Should all art students learn to paint and draw?
Not art school students… I believe ALL children should learn to draw from observation, perhaps at the same time they are learning to read. Learning to see accurately and to depict that onto a 2D surface is a wonderful skill to help us all think. Learning to take the time to observe how things are constructed, how they sit with others things, helps us understand the world in a more concrete way than reading about them. Drawing from observation also forces you to come to terms with how your assumptions alter reality: draw what you think you see and you don’t get a drawing of what you’re looking at. Recognizing how much your own assumptions play into the reality you create is essential for all people to develop critical thinking skills.
Nothing trains the powers of observation more effectively than drawing what you see. No artist was ever harmed by sharpening their powers of observation. It is then up to each artist to decide what to do with their observations, in whatever direction their hearts and minds lead them.