Comment by brudgers | Hacker News Reader

Comment by brudgers | Hacker News Reader

Making the case against Art School in general really needs to have better examples than RSID. Odds are, even if one dismisses the author's advice and enrolls in an art school, RISD will not grant admission. It is not only expensive, it is highly selective.

There are many other less expensive academic art programs ranging from community colleges through the land grant institutions and private colleges to enterprises as elite as RISD. None, some, many, or all may provide good cost benefit return to a particular person.

As someone trained in an academic studio environment - four years at graduate level for architecture - I strongly disagree with the author's suggestion that an online community can provide the equivalent to a shared studio. Talking to other makers is not a replacement from working alongside them 60 - 80 hours a week.

None of this is to suggest that higher education in the US is not grossly exploitive of young people, or that any art school has value for every individual or that an artist cannot further their education on their own.

> As someone trained in an academic studio environment - four years at graduate level for architecture - I strongly disagree with the author's suggestion that an online community can provide the equivalent to a shared studio. Talking to other makers is not a replacement from working alongside them 60 - 80 hours a week.

As someone trained in a studio art background, I totally agree. This is also why I don't think online learning will ever truly replace university. People always discount the effect other people have on their personal/professional growth.

I disagree- the university setting only impacts a few degrees which were historically apprenticeships/trades anyway. Art, Music, and even Law Schools would better serve students by leaving expensive universities.

Of course, some subset of students will want a university and will be able to afford it; but in the far future, that will be a very small fraction of the current college fairing crowd.

I guess what I mean is, that for Art - a group of students learning from multiple artists and working together without a teacher (art school is really about the work you do after hours anyways) is the best way. Whether that counts as being part of a University program or not doesn't matter - it's the togetherness that does. Going over Art History on Wikipedia then painting the sunset in your bedroom does not prepare you creatively at all.

Millions of people make digital art in their bedrooms. Demoscene, deviantart, 3D abstracts, threadless, processing were full of people who weren't old enough to be in art schools.

Plenty are as prepared creatively as art school graduates. Seems that it depends on what your peers appreciate, how good they are, how high their standards are. In some art schools you may end up in a less skilled group just like on some internet cliques/forums.

I think the author's suggestion is TOO extreme. As in, you don't even want to waste $500 on Gnomon videos. These videos are not good at all. Go pick up a box of Ticonderoga #2 pencils and any ruled notebook from walmart.

These are the required tools in order to become a superior traditional artist.

Absolutely. Unlike computer science topics art does not transfer well onto the internet. While one could learn a number of techniques for drawing and painting online, none of these make students into better artists, only better drawers or painters. Being technically better than your peers has some merit, but will not get you very far in the artistic community if the meaning of a piece is not conveyed well.

I think the primary mistake that the author makes is boiling art down into a collection of techniques. With this view they can easily argue that each of these techniques can be easily learned and replicated through online education. No reasonable artist would go to RISD and pay that much just to learn better techniques. If they wanted to do that they could just stay home and watch Bob Ross. Instead they to work with and be taught by the very good artists and students. And its these connections that make a RISD education worth 245k.

But to come to some kind of conclusion, art is not just a skill, at a very low level stops being about the artists technique and about its meaning, or communicative properties. Art education thrives on peer review, and the community around it. As a form of communication, you need to do and present art to other people, because without review, you can never understand how well you are communicating.

I agree with you about computer science not being so much like art.

I think programming is very much an art and that the ideal forum for teaching people to program looks a lot like an art studio.

Manifesto: Take the computers out of the lab and put them into the programming studio.

You can get really legitimate peer review on the Internet. You don't need somebody standing right next to you to get it.

I made a ton of digital art. Some of it decent enough to be appreciated by snobby art school people. Especially the stuff that looks painted like http://detrus.nivr.net/art/photos/01/styx.jpg

All of my feedback was through the internet. There were entire genres of digital art fed by the internet and absent from art schools.

I also went to a cheap state art/design school after. Doing the same critique/feedback stuff I did online IRL is nothing special. Especially when people surrounding you are years behind making presentable work. It's probably harder to achieve aesthetic mastery with non-digital art, which some peers did in art high schools.

Art doesn't transfer well over any medium. That's why there are thousands upon thousands of Art School students that are not producing art after Art School. They go into different fields. You can't teach someone to become an artist in 4 years. For some people, you won't be able to teach them ever, not even in a 25-year rigorous art school program.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com