This week's blog prompt was composed by moderators Erica and Isac. They look forward to engaging with you as you share your ideas about how art is best taught (and learned).
For this week’s blog we would like you to think about the way the arts are studied. Every week, we attend class and learn about historical art among peers. We are able to discuss our ideas with one another as well as with our instructors. As Dr. Hall has explained to us over the course of the semester, this approach is much different from the past.
During the Renaissance, aspiring artists were apprenticed to artisans, and would eventually become masters themselves to train the next generation. At the start of the Baroque period (the end of the 16th century), the first academy was established by the Carracci family. As we have learned, they were a large family of artists with big influences in the Italian art world. In the 17th century, King Louis XIV founded the Royal Academy in France. The Academy professionalized artists working for the French court. It was used to strictly standardize and control the quality of artwork produced by its pupils. Studying at the Royal Academy became a sort of “seal of approval” for these aspiring artists.
Think about the ways artists learned to refine their artistic skills during the Renaissance and Baroque, and compare them to the way you learn now. What are the pros and cons of the learning environment you experience and of one-on-one apprenticeships? How do you think the Royal Academy affected the originality or creativity of aspiring artists? If you could learn from one of the art masters discussed in class, who would you choose and why?
I think the pros and cons of a college learning environment can be similar to the environment of a one-on-one apprenticeship but there are definitely differences. For a college environment, pros are that students are encouraged to look at many different aspects of art and styles. The horizon is as far as travel and the internet allow you to study. The current learning experience encourages students to learn all kinds of different mediums and to experiment with all of them.
ReplyDeleteCons include that students are often required to put out as much material as possible when coming to assignments and pieces. Some artists took years to complete their works of art and students can be expected to put it out in a week or less depending on the project. Another con is that instead of the college funding you, you fund the college through tuition and fees. You pay to learn, which is fair, but is definitely a con.
Moving on, I'm not sure if we are referencing Renaissance/Baroque Era apprenticeships or current day apprenticeships, but I a going to assume one-on-one apprenticeships. I would say that apprenticeships have pros in the individual learning process. The master has an opportunity to teach the student individually and monitor their progression with more diligence. It often meant that in order to pay for "tuition" that the apprentice might need to work for them as an assistant. I still count that as a pro though because you are still learning the tools of the trade and everything you need to get stuff done. Another pro is that apprentices get to learn a specific style and that they can become more adequate in that chosen style and fall into niches. Carvaggio was so radically different because he fell into his own niche and was very well renowned because of it.
The cons of working an apprenticeship meant that students could be overshadowed by their masters and never gain the renown they wish for. It also means that the resources may not always be there, especially if the artist isn't very well known or popular. Another con is that students might only learn a specific medium and not become versed in anything other than painting on canvas as opposed to engraving, relief, or sculpting.
I think the Royal Academy definitely stifled the creativity and originality of artists because they were forced to implement Louis the XIV's vision. Instead of branching out, their art stayed in a style reminiscent of Raphael and the Renaissance. It probably made more artists reluctant to try other styles since the place of teaching only taught and required one style.
Despite all of the cons, I would love to learn from Michelangelo. Michelangelo might have a rough demeanor and style but he was truly gifted. If I could sculpt or paint like him, I feel it would be such a beautiful outlet for what the human mind can achieve. Michelangelo created the Pieta at 25 and to think I'm only 5 years away from that point, it blows my mind. I don't think given the next 5 years, I could achieve anything remotely like he has. It truly shows the disparity between the rate at which people learn skills and cultivate talents compared to then.
Ethan, your point regarding students today having to complete works in a certain amount of time compared to apprentices that work for long periods of time is thought provoking. The way in which we learn and create has evolved significantly since the Renaissance and Baroque eras. As students today, we often only spend a few months studying specific subjects. The apprentices, like you said, spent years creating works and learning from the masters. Could the style of learning we have today keep us from achieving the level of excellence the apprentices did? Does a limited amount of time today hinder us from creating something magnificent or do the exact opposite?
DeleteEthan, given how much I love Michelangelo's work I cannot stop myself from discussing him here.
DeleteIt also blows my mind that he was able to create amazing works of art at such a young age. I have to believe that carving marble with a chisel would be tremendously hard to do and I have a hard time conceptualizing how anybody could transform stone into a human form.
I agree with you that it probably would have been next to impossible to learn from Michelangelo, especially given the fact that he likely would not have been willing to teach. Perhaps we could learn from observation instead.
Also, I do not want to be "sappy", but please do not limit yourself. Michelangelo might have been a master at what he did, but what he did can be achievable if you are willing to work hard enough.
Ashlynne, I seriously considered your point of whether our current style of learning keeps us from not achieving excellence such as Michelangelo's Pieta, and I find that I feel it does. I feel like the classroom setting is not suitable for individuals because instead of getting experiences specific to your learning style and progression, you get more of a broad field of view. In my mind it is a hindrance because while the school's goal might be to enlighten you in your perspective, I think it is overshadowed by your degree obligations and having less time to explore this field.
DeleteThe ways we learn now, and the ways artists learned during the Renaissance and Baroque are each unique, but profitable nonetheless. Different techniques and methods are applied in each learning style. During the Renaissance and Baroque, to learn to paint, sculpt, or draw one would have an apprenticeship with an artist. Today, we are more likely to attend a class with a group of people that also have a desire to learn. Learning in a classroom as opposed to learning from an artist is indeed different. There are pros and cons to each learning method.
ReplyDeleteOne positive of learning in a modern classroom setting is having other aspiring learners with you to exchange ideas with and share in the journey of learning. There are others that can help you understand and grow. Usually an apprenticeship was a one on one experience. Another positive to the modern classroom is being able to learn about many artists and techniques and have availability to vast information about art. A negative to an apprenticeship would be only learning the techniques and skills of one particular master. Today, we learn many techniques from different artists and periods. A negative of learning in a modern classroom setting is that we are learning from well-educated teachers and professors, but not masters. A positive to an apprenticeship is learning directly from the master. The master could teach the apprentice their techniques and the meaning behind what they do. Today we do not always know why a particular artist created the way they did. Another negative to the modern classroom is we often do not spend as much time dedicating ourselves to learning and perfecting as apprentices did.
One positive to learning from a master is the personal relationship developed with them. The apprentice usually lived with them and became part of their household for a period of time. When learning today, we do not have that type of intimate relationship with teachers or professors.
I think The Royal Academy did have a big effect on the artists creativity and originality. Louis XIV only wanted a certain type of art. He made sure that what came out of the Royal Academy was that type of art. He had the masters only teach certain techniques and discourage any other techniques or styles. How could an artist develop their own personal style in this type of setting? They had no choice but to conform to the King’s wishes. This probably put artists in a predicament when considering joining the Academy. They would learn from masters, but only under a particular style. Would it be worth it to create if they could not create what they loved?
If I could learn from one artist I would want to learn from Jan van Eyck. The detail that he put into each of his works is amazing. I love detail and would be honored to learn from him how to bring paint to life. He painted many pieces in oil which was perfect for details. He also was great at using iconography. His works seem to tell stories. I would love to learn how to create such lifelike images that tell intricate stories.
Ashlynne, I really like how you touched on how useful a group setting can be because they can bounce ideas off each other. In high school it was just me an one other girl doing AP art, and I know for a fact I would not have gotten such a high grade that I did if she wasn't there, guiding me and helping me. I also like your choice of master, I think Jan Van Eyck would be absolutely incredible to learn from. I've always wanted to learn oil paint, and I think he would be the best person to learn from. Your questions about the Royal Academy are very intriguing, and I agree that the artists there would be just as trapped in one style as if they were apprenticing with someone.
DeleteAshlynne, I would like to add on to what you wrote about today's classroom environment.
DeleteYou wrote that one negative aspect is that teachers are not the same as masters and I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately I have had many teachers in the past who believe that because they are teachers that they cannot be wrong. I saw this happen in high school frequently whereas a student would ask a question that the teacher could not answer, but instead of the teacher admitting they did not know the answer they would get defensive and chastise the student for speaking out. This ultimately created a very hostile learning environment and I cannot say that I knew of anyone who actually learned anything from those classes.
The main post that I wrote also goes into detail about why I believe that individualized learning promotes higher thinking from students, which I see you agree with.
Something that really stood out to me in your post, Ashlynne is the whole second paragraph. The King only had an eye for a certain style and really enforced that upon every artist that walked into those doors. Some of the artists must have felt unmotivated by the academy. Originality also was torn in that academy, I wonder what it would've felt like just sitting there being like everyone else artistically.
DeleteWhen people look at art, I feel like the message is just as important as the artist who created it. I applaud anyone those students who stuck through that. The pressure of the academy style must've been unimaginable. Personally, I don't think it's worth creating if I can't create what I love.
Ashlynne, I would, first of all, just like to commend you on a well-written post overall (compared to my very long-winded response haha)! It struck me, in particular, when you noted that apprentices usually lived with their students -- can you imagine that in this day and age? It would truly be different! Also, I love the questions you put in your post, especially that second one. For me, no, it would definitely not be worth it to create if I can't create what I love. It is a very relevant question though, and definitely something the students had to think about when deciding whether or not to join the Academy!
DeleteThanks for your insight!
This is a concept that I have thought of very often. When hearing how grand artists like Leonardo De Vinci experienced apprenticeships, I have imaged what it would be like to be able to spend time with an artist and develop that kind of skill. It’s something that I think as an artist I could greatly benefit from, as well as having the classroom environment from today’s teachings.
ReplyDeleteComparing the two, I think both had their stresses and pressures, but they were in different aspects. During the Renaissance and Baroque period, because you were either painting for or with an artist, it was part of your responsibility to maintain the quality of the art. The point of being an apprentice is not only to learn but to be able to flawlessly incorporate your own work within another’s. I believe that because of the one-on-one interaction, or even small group interaction, that experience is what lead them to be so successful. They were able to have a personal connection with an artist, spend hours on end with them in their workshop, and learning their techniques. I think that is something that is incredibly unique. A con that I can identity, is that with the limited scope of techniques comes a limited ability. Learning at the Royal Academy means that you are only trained within the sight that the king would prefer, as it was funded by him.
Within modern day instructions, I think there comes a different pressure. Of course, there is the common pressure of, “you need to be good or no one will buy from you because everyone is cheap with art now”, but there also is a timely pressure. During the Baroque and Renaissance, artists were allowed years upon years of work to complete their commission. It gave them the opportunity to develop the piece into perfection. Today, you are given three weeks to complete a project, and then move on to the next. It is not an issue of how the professors teach, but I think rather the educational role in today’s time. Everything is so compact and immediate, there is no possible way to master a technique in the time given in courses. Last semester when I worked on calligraphy, even, my professor told us multiple times, “I am compacting three years of teaching into three weeks, so do not be disappointed if it doesn’t come out the way you want.” There are alternatives, however, that I call an unintentional one-on-one teaching. On YouTube you can look up a variety of teachers and artists that are willing to educate the curious, for free! This is a sort of unintentional master/apprentice teaching method that wasn’t available during the Baroque and Renaissance period.
Personally, I prefer the Baroque period over the Renaissance because I am an artist that also draws action, rather than stagnant scenes. I really loved how Peter Paul Rubens portrayed his art, as Dr. Hall mentioned he used a lot of diagonal structures in his piece. Something that I noticed, however, was that he also portrayed a sense of “waviness”, as I wrote down in my notes. The curls of the dogs, fur, the hair flying in the wind, the curve of the clothes, and even the muscles of them men raising the cross, I noticed displayed a wave to it all. Because of that reason, the illustrative along with a realistic approach he developed, I would want to learn from Peter Paul Rubens.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBryson, I have to admit I wasn't thinking in terms outside of college and Youtube is a very useful tool that wasn't available back then. The internet is a blessing and a curse, but in terms of learning, it is vast in it's expanse and scope. At this point and time, according to the Youtube Press website, youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html, there are over one billion hours watched daily and over three-hundred hours uploaded every minute. That is a HUGE expanse of knowledge and teaching that is indeed, for free. And then there are websites like Lynda.com or Skillshare. I think I overlooked the potential for the sheer amount of knowledge one can attain. On the same flip of the coin, I feel unless you are guided to a specific style, it can be overwhelming. Just some food for thought.
DeleteNice job Bryson, I really liked how you included your personal experience. That provided a lot more detail in your post and where your opinion came from. Usually art teachers have to teach a technique in a short amount of time in college and knowing what you know, do you think there is a way to change that or maybe "fix" it?
DeleteSo you are a Rubéniste, eh? ;)
DeleteBryson, I appreciate how you talked about this sense of 'waviness' in Rubens' work, and then provided specific examples. I did not originally pick up on that in lecture, but now, I am going to have to go back and look for myself because I am intrigued!
Calligraphy is fun! It is frustrating that you had to learn how to do it (I'm assuming?) in three weeks though! In my original post, I mentioned a relief print I made for a class project. I did the drawing, transferring (from paper to the linoleum block), carving, and inking in a weekend. Was it perfect? No. But I made an effort to try something new, and I think you would be able to say the same. And I agree that YouTube is excellent for learning how to do these things and brushing up on your skills alike.
I also included in my post how beneficial Youtube is! Not just for the arts either, there are actually lectures and lesson plans for almost every subject on there, which is an advantage we have over the people living 500 years ago. The only draw back is the lack of relationship we have with the poster; we cannot just ask them questions about the topic, we have to find out ourselves instead of having a go to person to ask.
DeleteAs someone who enjoys making art and as someone who even once considered pursuing art as a full time career, I think that is it extremely important to analyze how art is taught and learned. We discussed in class that the creation of the first art academy drastically changed how artists were trained during the sixteenth century; however, I would be interested to know how the training artists felt about the education they were receiving. I recall that the Royal Academy in France valued controlled quality of artwork along with standardization above all else. This fact, to me, is very sad due to the fact that I believe the driving force behind art is creativity. Without creativity every work of ark would be the same style, made with the same medium, and made with the same purpose in mind.
ReplyDeleteI cannot definitively answer whether or not apprenticeships promoted higher creative thinking from students during the sixteenth century because I was not there during that time, but given what I have learned from my past experiences in art classes I feel as if "one on one" teaching promotes the best results from students. For example, I once was apart of an AP program whereas there were only six students to one teacher. I found that this class in particular honed my skills in no way that any other class ever had before. Looking back now, it is clear that because the class was so small the teacher had time to address each of us individually, the students were not afraid to ask questions, and each one of us developed a strong relationship with our teacher. I cannot say that I have found this same type of learning environment in classes where there are more students.
If I have the opportunity to learn from any one master of the arts it would hands down be Michelangelo. Every one of his works that I have looked at has captivated me in a way that no other has. I think that his sculptures in particular are exceptionally beautiful and I value how much detail he put into everything he did. In fact, Michelangelo's sculpture "Pieta" was the first work of art that made me think "this is something worth paying for for". With this being said, I also would like to learn from him because the art of carving marble is something that you do not see often in our time and I think that it would be very unique to carve marble. My only concern is that Michelangelo might not be the easiest to get along with given his track record, in which case I would do more observing than talking.
Josh, I heavily agree that any small class environment I've had, I've benefited from greatly. Int he case of myself, it is just a fact that my learning style is very engaging and even if I'm wrong, I try to answer all the questions because through trial and error that's how I learn. For larger class environments, that is harder for me to do because there are more people to embarrass myself in front of. I have found closer knit communities and learning environments are generally more effective. And as you said, those larger environments like the Royal Academy can be creatively locked to a specific style.
DeleteThank you for your post, Josh. I can definitely relate to yours and Ethan's experiences in small class learning environments. I took an IB Film class in high school and although it started out with 20+ students, by the later half of the year only about 10 remained. I was able to create a strong bond with my teacher, but more importantly my classmates and I made a very strong learning community. Although I think one-on-one teachings could be very beneficial to me, I'd much prefer to be in a class with other students. I think being able to talk with other learners and seeing as many perspectives and ideas is significant to my creative learning.
DeleteIn regards to your choice of being apprenticed by a master of the arts, I think Michelangelo is a great choice! I agree that Pieta is an absolutely beautiful sculpture! Other than your comment about getting along with him, my biggest concern would be learning to paint from him. I'd just hope he wouldn't make me paint on any ceilings because my neck and back are not as strong as his had to be to paint the Sistine Chapel!
Josh, I like that you addressed the issue of creativity regarding the Royal Academy. I agree that because they were taught what to create and how to create it there was not much room for originality. I was quick to think that if an artist was involved in an apprenticeship rather than the Royal Academy, they must have more creative freedom. However, like you brought up that might not have been the case. Just because a student learned from an artist one on one, that did not mean they had freedom to create whatever they wanted. The artist might have given them some freedom, but they also might have only let them practice the techniques they taught them. If this was the case, the real question is: Where was true creativity and individuality allowed to flourish? Are the artworks that are famous today truly unique or just filled with others’ techniques and ideas?
DeleteThe main way artists learned their needed skills during the Renaissance was through apprenticeship, aspiring artists would leave home to study under a "professional" artist. In the Baroque period, there were academies that were created because many believed that art was super important and powerful. When comparing how people study art from the past to the present, there are a mix of academies and self-learning. Nowadays aspiring artists can choose to learn through internet classes and small programs through the public or schooling.
ReplyDeleteThe upside to academies are that they provide a tool box for artists who are just starting out. The students could also be mixed with people of different skills and share tips with each other. They also might feel more free with their art projects, with the acceptation of certain required guidelines. If someone decides to participate in one-on-one apprenticeships, they're guaranteed more help with their development on art. The mentor can repeat steps as many times as needed. However with every upside, there are downsides. One of the many downsides for learning in a academy is that sometimes certain styles will be expected. The leaders of the academy could be bias on what they believe art should look like and dictate which style is better fitting for them. In a classroom-like environment, the student might not be getting the help that they need or are satisfied with. One-on-one apprenticeships could get stressful because the apprentice might feel under constant stress because of certain expectations that their mentor has. Both parties could also feel like they're more restricted on what they can and can't express and if there's a certain style that is required it can take the fun out of creating art. It can push people to be unmotivated creatively and only want to get the job done so they can move on.
Yasmine, you touched upon some great points! Namely, your last one, about how only allowing certain styles can take the fun out of art, really resonated with me. I had not originally considered that, but, it is so true. And I think it goes back to Ashlynne's question up above, "would it be worth it to create if they could not create what they loved?" It seems like most of us are in agreement of what we would answer that question with. The very last sentence of your post kind of 'sparked' a new question in my mind: did apprentices ever try to rekindle their students' motivation, and if so, how? It is just something I'm curious about.
DeleteI agree with Lizzy. If you're not into the style it defeats the purpose of making that art because you won't really feel as passionate as you could feel compared to a different style of art that you actually like.
DeleteYasimine,
DeleteI completely agree that artist today are more so self-taught along coupled with few classes. As an artist myself, I can say much of my skill came from practice and figuring what worked best for me and few classes to help push my creativity. Your pros and cons list provides some really good points that I hadn't thought of!
I didn't even consider the stress the apprentice might have been under. A lot of the artists had their students finish works for them, or at least help somewhat. Could you imagine accidentally ruining a commission piece? Especially if the artist had a temper.
DeleteIt also reminds me that some artists were not good people. Look at Artemisia Gentileschi, who was raped by Tassi under his apprenticeship. Bernini had a temper, and almost killed his brother with a sword and paid someone to slash his wife's face with a razor. Being an apprentice under the likes of these people must have been terrifying.
Yasmine, I like that you mentioned how not being able to explore one's own style could take the fun out of art. I myself enjoy drawing, but that wasn't the case when I was told what I should or shouldn't draw.
DeleteAll interesting points, Yasmine! I especially agree with the downsides you mentioned! Although we don't know for sure the way these aspiring artists felt with each learning environment, we can get a good idea by relating them to our own personal experiences. I can definitely imagine getting stressed by the expectations that can come with one-on-one apprenticeships.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, my apologies for contributing to this blog later than usual. This weekend was the Phi Theta Kappa Regional Convention, and so I was much busier. In spite of that, however, I will give this blog post my best shot now.
ReplyDeleteOne pro of the college environment that I can think of right off the bat would have to be collaboration. We have the opportunity to go to class and interact with each other on a weekly basis, and unlike a one-on-one apprentice environment, we have options as to who we talk to and who we can work with. This collaborative avenue, thus, allows for the identification and articulation of multiple perspectives. I think it is fair to say that each of us has our own approach to learning about art, and we each have different preferences/ideas about what is ‘artful’. This, too, contrasts with the one-on-one apprentice environment in that students were mainly taught in the way their apprentices wanted them to be, and they were virtually not exposed to any other instruction. Another pro of the college environment would be our freedom to address and discuss various art styles. In this class alone, we’ve covered several iterations of Renaissance and Baroque art, as well as Mannerism. Apprentices of the Royal Academy would have probably just stopped at art from the High Renaissance, or art from the Northern Baroque, based on what they and the king liked. Moreover, I would say that the sheer technology we have available to us, in class and in everyday life, is a definite pro when it comes to art. Last semester, when I was in ARH100 (with Dr. Hall, I might add), I did a relief print as one of our projects. I had learned about how to make one in general from a provided handout, but, during my actual creation, I watched a Virtual Instructor video to take me through the process. These videos are definitely not a luxury that students of the Royal Academy had, and one of the perks of watching a video, I feel, is that the person cannot criticize you for making a mistake. Speaking of mistakes...I’d imagine that apprentices were never too happy whenever their students made them. Our instructors, on the other hand, seem more forgiving. As for cons, our training in multiple art styles can make us seem to be a “jack of all trades”, to use that awful cliche. Unless we seek out and take a class on one particular style of art, we will only have near-basic knowledge of various styles. Furthermore, this next con is actually pretty similar to the apprentice environment: overall subjectivity of the work we produce, namely, in the form of grades. I had a teacher in elementary school who would give me B’s and C’s on my work, even though I had put forth a lot of effort. It was a devastating feeling.
One pro of an apprenticeship is that it was more individualized. The apprentice and student got to know each other much more, ultimately, than if there were fifteen or twenty other students. This allowed the student to have an easier time reaching out and asking questions of the apprentice. Another pro is that the student was able to truly master an art form. As we know from Thursday’s lecture, Anthony van Dyck became an expert in painting portraits through Rubens’s teachings. This is evident in his depiction of Charles I in Charles I at the Hunt, where Charles’s whole body is represented, and he seems to have just started looking at us. And, an apprenticeship had the potential to be a good ‘crash course’ for students with no prior experience in art, as they were able to learn a lot about a particular style from apprentices they had come to know.
Now, a con of an apprenticeship is that the students basically ‘conformed’ to what the apprentice and king wanted. They were taught in one style, maybe two if the situation allowed, and that was pretty much it. Another con was that the Academy had very high expectations. It was meant to serve the wants of royalty, after all, and if you were not good enough, I imagine the Academy could have easily ‘booted’ you out. I believe that is sort of akin to the arts schools of today; if you were under-performing in your craft, and exhibited defiance or other bad behavior toward your teacher (perhaps) because of it, then you likely would not get very far and would have to attend elsewhere. A final con of apprenticeship is the lack of varying perspectives. It was as if the apprentices said to their students, ‘this is the way I want you to do it, now go’, whereas, in a classroom, we are exposed to Dr. Hall’s way of thinking about art as well as our own.
DeleteGiven my knowledge of the Royal Academy and its purposes, no, I do not think it allowed for much originality at all. Because its main goal was to adhere to and fulfill the King’s tastes, quality, rather than content, of art was emphasized. This left artists with not much ‘wiggle room’ to ‘experiment’ with styles that were not as ‘pristine’ or ‘elevated’ as the Academy wanted. To use a “modern” example, a style like that of Jackson Pollock’s would have been totally frowned upon in the Academy, not only because it looks chaotic, but because it also does not really represent anything. To some, it just looks like a bunch of squiggly lines, and a kindergartener could make squiggly lines. Therefore, exploration of ‘different’ art styles was not encouraged in the Royal Academy, and because of this, artists’ works eventually began to represent each other. This became a problem, as we saw in lecture, when people saw a work they believed was Peter Paul Rubens’, but it actually turned out to be from his students.
Out of each of the art masters, I would choose to learn from Nicolas Poussin (so, for the purposes of this class, I am a Poussiniste instead of a Rubéniste). While Rubens’ use of color is visually appealing, I am more intrigued by Poussin’s use of line. More specifically, I am in awe of how his works were very controlled, symmetric, and precise. As I am not very good at painting alone, much less being precise with my painting, I feel that Poussin would give me very helpful techniques how to accomplish it. Moreover, it is from Poussin that we know about the Grand Manner. I agree with his philosophy that we should tell stories through art. And I find it quite intriguing that even though he considered landscape paintings one of the “low subjects”, he did them anyway, adding that one historical figure (St. John, for example) to make the painting no longer a landscape. These two reasons are why I would choose to learn from Poussin.
Yes, it is clear that in the present day a college would be way more beneficial than a a single apprenticeship. In the past it would be the other way around due to the too controlling manner of the Royal Academy. The way that they would only teach and promote one style of art is so odd to me.
DeleteI agree with what you mentioned on the academy. The purpose for art pieces was for royalty or the Church which an artist may not reach the expectations which then hurt his career.
DeleteIt is hard to say whether an institution is more valuable than a traditional apprenticeship. However, I can say that in the past there are some aspects I think could be appreciated more in apprenticeships rather than an institution such as the Royal Academy. For Instance, in the past if one wanted to become an artist they would study under an accomplished artist. I assume that the artist they apprenticed for had a certain style of there very own. Maybe the person wanted to learn about that specific style. While the academy had the ability to teach many artist at the same time, it lacked individually. This is said because the king, Louis XIV, dictated what was the superior art style that should be taught in the Royal Academy. I personally do not like someone or something that dictates what art is and what art is not. An aspect of the Royal Academy I found to be worth while was the scholarships students could receive like trips to Italy to observe and create art first hand. Overall I believe apprenticeships were more valuable in terms of changing and enhancing new art styles instead of an Academy in which one could only try to replicate the artists of the Renaissance style.
ReplyDeleteI like that you brought up scholarships! But you also have to think about why the Academies started in the first place. So that a lot of people could learn all at once and make it more efficient in a way. I really like that you mentioned about someone dictating what art is or what are isn't. Maybe think about how the Academies helped the students decide in there own opinion what art is and isn't.
DeleteThis is true and you have got me a little more on board with the Royal Academy. Students would in fact follow after successful artists, where as in todays college classes, it is more unlikely the art teacher is a well known master of the arts. And it didn't really cross my mind that perhaps the students did want to paint in the preferred style not really interested in branching out.
DeleteIn my research to better understand the training of Renaissance & Baroque artist, I found that many artist started their apprenticeship at very early ages, as young as 10 years old. Today, it is not common for artists in their adult life to even work as an apprentice, let alone a child. Many artist today work alone perfecting their skills. While the lessons remain relatively similar from mimicking past artist and learning the basics of drawing, then they moved on up to painting. Today, the lessons of art do not follow a strict latter of steps. One can start off painting then drawing and then bounce back from one to another.
ReplyDeleteOne of the pros I can see from being in a learning environment is the ability to get critiques from your peers, along with being able to share ideas from one another. In contrast, to a one-on-one apprenticeships being limited to ultimately one person can limit how much feedback you receive. A positive aspect from a one-on-one apprenticeships is the connection built from teacher and student. This type of connection I feel is lost or is not as strong in a learning environment.
No, I do no believe there was a wide opening for creativity in the Royal Academy. From what I was able to gain from reading about King Louis XIV, his strict influence of art, leads me to the assumption he preferred one certain type of art..
If I had the opportunity to be taught from master artist, I think I would chose Hieronymus Bosch. "Garden of Earthly Delight" is full of vibrant color and strange objects. I find this piece extremely interesting, which is why I feel like his perspective on things would be fascinating to learn about.
Thank you, Aryanna! I like how you did some personal research to better understand the subject. Starting an apprenticeship as young as 10 years old sounds insanely dedicated! I agree with your comment about the creativity in the Royal Academy. But still I wonder how the teachers of the Royal Academy could have helped influence the creativity of the students. Some masters we have learned about, Nicolas Poussin and Charles Le Brun, pleased King Louis with their art but still created many beautiful and unique works of art. Even though it wasn't all as dramatic as Italian Baroque period, they brought new ideas such as grand manner that could inspire their students to be creative in different, non-dramatic ways.
DeleteThough there are pros and cons, I believe a one-on-one apprenticeship is completley different. The way we are taught art now is more of an appreication of past artists. It is an overall view of each piece we are are presented, we are not insturcted on any specifics. A pro for an instutional learning basis is the others in the room. We meet twice a week, have the oppurtunity to ask questions and collabrate with others. In art it is very important to listen to an opinion other than your own. A one on one apprenticeship is i believe would be much more beneifical if you had a desire to be resemble an artist. To be a teachers only student would mean you are their only focus and helping you achieve your goals would be their only goal. A con would be that you only have your instuctor to look to for help, like i mentioned earlier it is a great thing that we meet together to talk and ask questions. I personally like learning in groups so i don't believe a one on one apprenticeship would be for me.
ReplyDeleteIf ever given the oppurtunity to learn directly under an arist I would probably have to say Michelangelo. I absoultely love his Davd sculpture. I would love to learn how to sculpt from him but imagine it would be pretty difficult due to his personality.
-NOEMI RAMIREZ (i haven't fixed this sorry!)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(Deleted last post due to formatting error)
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me during the lecture about Louis XIV's school for the arts was how almost claustrophobic it was. These students were to learn to paint in the way Louis XIV favored; absolutism made the king's word above all, and everything he likes was set in stone, so it was not to be surprising that he'd want art to go his way. However, it seems as if the art would be manufactured. I suppose it could be the same today, depending on the art teacher. Some art teachers might judge too harshly, being unable to see the message their student is trying to portray. In this way, the teacher could force the student to produce art to the teacher's liking or suffer a bad grade. The level of this fictitious teacher's power cannot be compared to the likes of the longest reigning monarch of France, however.
One-on-one apprenticeships are another thing that interested me. The way they worked 500 years ago are almost non existent now; moving in with a stranger (usually a man) to learn art would probably give you some strange looks. I think the closest thing we have to that today is the use of media. Sure, it isn't face to face, but look at videos of Bob Ross teaching you to paint landscape, or videos of digital artists teaching you how to draw your favorite characters on Youtube. It's still one-on-one, but you aren't sharing their living spaces with them or talking face to face. The internet makes everything easier; today, you don't have to move in with a stranger to learn different brush stokes, just log onto Youtube and there are hundreds of videos at your disposal.
As for which artist I would want to apprentice for, I'd probably pick Botticelli. I honestly haven't gotten "The Birth of Venus" out of my mind since we talked about it. That painting might be one of my favorites; the use of the soft pastels and the story it tells is enchanting. I would also love to see how he painted his models; I read that he painted Simonetta Vespucci's face from memory, but I'm not sure how accurate that is.
Hi Hannah. I like how you compared the monarchs of the past to teachers of today, it really does not seem that bad when compared to a ruling monarch what students must deal with in modern times. I am sure art is much more original and creative now then before, especially in regards to what students are allowed to produce and create and what styles to use. I also think it was interesting how you compared one-on-one apprenticeships to media today and people being taught through personal video instruction. These do hold a lot of similarity in value and I did not think about that much before. It is interesting how much of an impact media has had on art in the modern era. I am also interested in Botticelli and appreciate the pastels that he uses in "The Birth of Venus", I think his works are very pleasing to look at and I agree that his art is enchanting. Thank you for sharing.
DeleteHannah, I am happy to see Botticelli in this blog post! I too, can say that Botticelli has to be one of my favorite artists... the painting that I can't get out of my head however is Primavera. The colors, the iconography, and the body language that Botticelli paints is a style that has really pleased me in a similar way that is gratifies you.
DeleteI believe the contrasting artistic learning style and skills can be seen as vastly different during the period of the Renaissance and Baroque from those of the current time and in our learning community specifically. As mentioned, the renaissance period saw more one-on-one apprenticeships and the baroque period was beginning to be introduced to vast academy that may have a set learning style for art that may vary with location and region. Now, our specific course is looking at a survey of the history of art in a specific region from one time period to another. While artist in the past may have studied techniques much like we do today, they may only be bound to a certain set of techniques that their master has perfected or teacher is allowed to teach their students for the liking of the academy. This often led to many varied styles of art that we can view distinctly today, observing the distinguishable techniques that point to a specific piece of art's location of origin. This is also extremely useful and helpful for identifying past works of art that would otherwise be very difficult to pinpoint a specified artist for.
ReplyDeleteI find that the pros far outweigh the cons when looking specifically at our learning community when compared to past learning styles like those of the one-on-one apprenticeship. While working one-on-one helps to tap into a certain style and truly master a technique for painting specified methods, a learning community helps survey a varied range of techniques and see how art has changed throughout time and compared to modern times. In our learning community, we can also receive specified one-on-one feedback from or instructors as they review our learning and assignments, as well as, fellow students and colleagues. As opposed to a one-on-one learning aspect back in the day, the Royal Academy could be seen as a different tool for teaching artists as it helped teach many concepts to a wide group of individuals. This is probably more impersonal than an apprenticeship and may lead to a varied art style rather than a specific style taught by a master. With the Royal Academy having a wide influence on many individuals, they were probably taught with a core curriculum in mind and were expected of very specific styles and techniques. This way, King Louis XIV could influence art they way he ought to think it be portrayed to his liking through the Royal Academy's teachings. I think this lead to very little originality and creativity within artists that attended an academy because they were held to such high standards and were watched closely; if they did not meet what was expected, they were probably not welcome to the academy.
If I could learn from a specific art master discussed in class, I would probably choose to learn and take tips from the master Caravaggio himself. He had a huge influence in many great Baroque artists and has a very distinct style that is recognizable among great works of art. The immense realism in his art makes it look like his paintings are alive and moving as most are action shots. He also has an amazing ability that is distinct and recognizable which is the way he works oil paint to create dramatic lighting in his paintings to come from a fixed location and very realistically cast shadows over his masterpiece. I would be most interested in learning more in this style because I think it is the most pleasing to loo at to me and I am inspired very much by Caravaggio.
Hello Kyle! You bring up some interesting points about the pros and cons about one-on-one learning and I liked that you compared it to our learning community. Personally, I thing that the one-one-one learning works more efficiently for me than the academy learning, what do you think?
DeleteHaving the one on one learning experience was helpful to artists in the 15th century because they could learn techniques at their pace so, in that way, I think, the apprentice would learn better in a one on one. Artists in the 16th century were mostly taught by the Royal Academy where many artists were taught by a professional all together. This allowed for many people to learn how to increase their knowledge on art techniques. However, this limited an individual’s art styles severely because the academy expected a specific art style that they deemed correct. In college, the structure is slightly different. A teacher teaches their students how to do certain medias but ultimately lets them figure out their own style.
ReplyDeleteA pro of studying the way artists in the 15th and 16th century is they learned everything from a professional, a person who was already famous and had a large platform and fame which gave his apprentices or students the ability to be recognized by patrons and other artists.
A con of learning art this way was that apprentices and students couldn't find their own style. Their art style was dictated by their teacher who had their own ideas on what perfect art should look like.
A pro of learning college in art is that every student has their own sense of what they want their art to look like. They have the ability to make original art. Art in college classes is mostly subjective and if a student needs any help, the professor is there for them.
A con would be that there isn’t much time given to a student to complete their art projects. Between their work for other classes and other personal issues, a student hardly has time to spend creating artwork they are proud of.
Personally, I would like to learn from Artemisia Gentileschi because her ability to depict dramatic scenes like those of Judith Slaying Holofernes. I know she was inspired by Caravaggio and maybe I should’ve chosen him, but I feel like Artemisia has her own style that I appreciate and admire very much.
I agree, back them it was probably extremely difficult to develop different style and have it become popular, especially if it differs from what the king prefers. At least today there is an audience for all styles and people are more open to welcoming new ideas and concepts.
DeleteDamaris,
Deleteyou made some really good points in your pros and cons list. I had not thought of the apprenticeships giving the artist in training the ability to pick their own pace. Artemisia Gentileschi is a great choice! Her ability to portray women as strong in a time when women were considered anything but strong is truly inspiring.
I assume that most of this class consumes of artists of many different mediums, that in its self is drastically different from how art used to be pursued. In todays society art is more accessible as well as highly viewed upon mostly everyone, allowing all to express their inner creativity where back then it may have more difficult. Unless you cloud afford to attend one of the royal academies, it was unlikely that people would be accepted, and if so, the education of art departs from how art is embraced now. Art more recently consists of everything, from abstract to realisms and for the most part it's all celebrated, where back then the academy may have created prestigious artists, however, they were tied down to a specific style that the king requested, limiting their room for expression. It is important to note though, that the materials given and the skills that were taught were on another level considering the academy is funded by the king; though, if you were to take a college art-class in todays time, all the materials would have to be purchased by the student creating a varied playing field for students in the quality of their work.
ReplyDeleteThe Royal Academy created opportunities for aspiring artists to work for masters of art which was an incredible opportunity, but these potential apprentices were at risk of having their work credited to someone else, loosing their validity.
If I had the chance to be an apprentice to any one of the master artists i would without a doubt choose Leonardo Da Vinci. I would love to learn the secrets behind the Mona Lisa as well as the Last Supper. That is not all however, I was most blown away by his dedication to his sketches and the extent he would go when he would analyze corpses, truly trying to understand the body and how it works. Learning how he begun to paint in sfumato and how to actually do it would be incredible experience as well.
The majority of posts seem to come from the perspective of an aspiring artist, which is unsurprising considering this is an art history class. I am not an artist, and I’ve never had the privilege of a one-on-one apprenticeship to compare my education to. I also don’t believe that art has a monopoly on masters. By my definition, anyone who’s made significant contributions to their field of expertise could be considered as such. Therefore, it seems to me, that anyone, regardless of specialization, could benefit from the mentorship offered in a one-on-one apprenticeship. Particularly, one in the form that was common in the context of the workshops and apprenticeships of the Renaissance and Baroque. I think that an apprenticeship presents a unique opportunity for a personalized curriculum, one that could address the specific needs and abilities of a given apprentice. Additionally, the amount of individualized attention that the master could dedicate to fortifying the weak spots of the student’s skillset would be hugely beneficial. Unfortunately, the apprenticeship presents a significant logistical challenge. If the word “master” is to mean anything, then surely there are not enough masters to address the needs of the ever-growing student population. This problem necessitates the modern education industry. The introduction of the Royal Academy was a symptom of the shift towards a standardized, scalable institutional structure that could meet the needs of a growing population. Quality of instruction, or perhaps instructors, is sacrificed to accommodate the tremendous demand for mentorship. The result is an overall increase in quantity, with a general decrease in capability.
ReplyDeleteFrom what has come to my understanding about Renaissance and Baroque art is that it was mostly taught and developed throughout Europe through some form of apprenticeship or Academy. One of the most commonly heard Academy’s of the 17th century being the Royal Academy (1648). This academy, which was established in France, differed from the way that art was taught during the Renaissance time period. As opposed to a one-on-one apprenticeship, the academy’s solely focused on art having a purpose and its purpose was to elevate life. Also, the academy’s wanted control of what kind of art was being made since they did favor Poussinistes art for its orderly and classical compositions.
ReplyDeleteTo continue, I think that some of the pros of how we learn to both perceive and make art today is that we have a wider sense of freedom and appreciation for art. With what I mentioned previously about Academy’s having a biased confirmation of Poussinistes art, we can contrast that belief to what we see today. We don’t face that sort of problem anymore since there are more doors open to art today; neither Poussinistes or Rubenistes art is the right form of art for our environment.
Lastly, if I were able to learn from an artist master we have discussed in class it would definitely have to be Andre Pozzo. What most intrigues me about Pozzo was his exploration of illusion of three-dimensional space on flat surfaces. We can see one of most famous works of art in the Glorification of St.Ignatius in which the quadratura technique is successfully exhibited. Along with his paintings, Pozzo's encounter with the quadratura technique also influenced his acknowledgment of architecture and design; all of which came under the influence of an apprenticeship and also the Lombard School.