So I have a history exam tomorrow- my first (of two) exams. Warning now before you start reading: This post may get long, and may be whiney. But I'm also going to share some paintings and art things I learned about in this course that I liked. So you can scroll down to that if you don't want to read about how bad this class was.
I was honestly shocked. OCAD is a prestigious art school - being the oldest and largest art institution in Canada. It's been around since 1876. They're having their 99th graduate show this year. Here's a list of 'Notable Alumni'. I'm not saying this one class discounts these accomplishments, but I was really disappointed. (I will post later in the week about my first year experience now that's it's over...)
I don't want to harp on the quality of my professor- she was a nice person, and she did teach us everything she tested us on. She's just one of those people that dance around what they want to say for five minutes- just can't say anything in one simple, direct sentence. I've been re-listening to her podcasts to study from, and geez louise. She could say everything she says in a quarter of the time if she took George Orwell's advice from Politics and the English Language. (Which if you haven't read, you should because it is really helpful- though a little out of date).
I am one of a small portion in my class of 300 that took art history in highschool. In half the time, I learned probably 4 or 5 times as much. I also 20 memorized slides (title, artist, date, era of artworks) every other week or so. In this class at university, we memorize 40 for the final exam, and are given a 10 year forgiveness on the dates. This part is the part that bothers me the most. In highschool, I was quizzed on the same material but more, and it was more difficult and specific. It isn't hard to memorize 40 dates if you spend the time. And giving students a 20 year forgiveness period doesn't make sense. If Jackson Pollock was painting in the 1960s, or the 1930s, rather than the 40s and 50s, he would be either revolutionary, insane, or completely outdated and behind the times. Paintings done in the twenties, if painted ten years earlier are before WWI- if ten years later they're painted after WWII. The difference in the cultural, social, and economical settings for these artists would be completely different. This is a final exam, I want to be forced to learn. That's what I'm paying for isn't it? Instead, I could walk into the exam and guess the dates for the majority of the images they'll test me on.
She also managed to miss some crucial artists: Matisse, Van Gogh, Seurat, Picasso, Cezanne and many other big names- she picked obscure artists, and obscure mediums (not that there's anything wrong with that- I am totally interested in lithography, textiles, printmaking, sculpture, etc.). But those artists at least deserve mention don't they?
Banting students- seriously take art history if you're planning on going into art. It is SO helpful, Mrs. Evans is the ultimate teacher and knows her stuff and you'll learn so much more (at a less stressful time in your life)...
Phew. Ok- I'm going to show a few images that I've found really interesting recently.
A lot of people discount Jackson Pollock because he was an alcoholic, his paintings are currently falling apart, and he generally was a little distasteful. But what he was doing was at the time pretty revolutionary stuff. Automatism (painting what you feel abstractly- kind of letting your body take over), was a pretty cool thing to do when it had never been done before. The infamous "My kid could paint that," gets a little old. And to be honest, your kid didn't live in the 40s and 50s, and they weren't alcoholics, and they weren't Jackson Pollock.
I was honestly shocked. OCAD is a prestigious art school - being the oldest and largest art institution in Canada. It's been around since 1876. They're having their 99th graduate show this year. Here's a list of 'Notable Alumni'. I'm not saying this one class discounts these accomplishments, but I was really disappointed. (I will post later in the week about my first year experience now that's it's over...)
I don't want to harp on the quality of my professor- she was a nice person, and she did teach us everything she tested us on. She's just one of those people that dance around what they want to say for five minutes- just can't say anything in one simple, direct sentence. I've been re-listening to her podcasts to study from, and geez louise. She could say everything she says in a quarter of the time if she took George Orwell's advice from Politics and the English Language. (Which if you haven't read, you should because it is really helpful- though a little out of date).
I am one of a small portion in my class of 300 that took art history in highschool. In half the time, I learned probably 4 or 5 times as much. I also 20 memorized slides (title, artist, date, era of artworks) every other week or so. In this class at university, we memorize 40 for the final exam, and are given a 10 year forgiveness on the dates. This part is the part that bothers me the most. In highschool, I was quizzed on the same material but more, and it was more difficult and specific. It isn't hard to memorize 40 dates if you spend the time. And giving students a 20 year forgiveness period doesn't make sense. If Jackson Pollock was painting in the 1960s, or the 1930s, rather than the 40s and 50s, he would be either revolutionary, insane, or completely outdated and behind the times. Paintings done in the twenties, if painted ten years earlier are before WWI- if ten years later they're painted after WWII. The difference in the cultural, social, and economical settings for these artists would be completely different. This is a final exam, I want to be forced to learn. That's what I'm paying for isn't it? Instead, I could walk into the exam and guess the dates for the majority of the images they'll test me on.
She also managed to miss some crucial artists: Matisse, Van Gogh, Seurat, Picasso, Cezanne and many other big names- she picked obscure artists, and obscure mediums (not that there's anything wrong with that- I am totally interested in lithography, textiles, printmaking, sculpture, etc.). But those artists at least deserve mention don't they?
Banting students- seriously take art history if you're planning on going into art. It is SO helpful, Mrs. Evans is the ultimate teacher and knows her stuff and you'll learn so much more (at a less stressful time in your life)...
Phew. Ok- I'm going to show a few images that I've found really interesting recently.
A lot of people discount Jackson Pollock because he was an alcoholic, his paintings are currently falling apart, and he generally was a little distasteful. But what he was doing was at the time pretty revolutionary stuff. Automatism (painting what you feel abstractly- kind of letting your body take over), was a pretty cool thing to do when it had never been done before. The infamous "My kid could paint that," gets a little old. And to be honest, your kid didn't live in the 40s and 50s, and they weren't alcoholics, and they weren't Jackson Pollock.
She-Wolf, 1943
I've also always been a fan of Courbet- you should just type his name into google images, because all of his paintings are fantastic.
Cindy Sherman. Untitled Film Still #21, 1978
I don't know what it is about this picture, but I just find it so interesting.
Norval Morrisseau, Serpent Legend 1961
I've also been very interested in Indigenous art recently. They've done a few lectures about it, which has raised my awareness a little bit. I think something big they talked about was that Indigenous people aren't past as they often are made to seem. In museums, and textbooks, and art they have been historicized- but they still exist. They also have a really sad story that should be told. I've been researching (to a small extent- but hopefully I'll be able to make more time for it once exams are over) the Oka Standoff in 1990, and the art made around that time by both Indigenous artists, and non-indigenous artists who have teamed up together.
Carl Beam. The Northern Iceburg. 1985
If you want to know something really sad- here it is. This piece is the FIRST piece of Indigenous art purchased by the National Gallery. THE FIRST. In the late 80s.
And it was a political move.
Despite that, this has opened a door for indigenous artists to be seen as contemporary, and not just historical.
In the Expo 67, in the "Indians of Canada" Pavillion, they had this to say:
"You have stolen our native land, our culture, our soul...and yet our traditions deserve to be appreciated and those derived from an age old harmony with nature even merited being adopted by you."
Eadweard Muybridge. Horse in Motion. 1886
You probably recognize this image- it was done as a bet to see if horses ever have all four feet in the air when they run. Before this time, they didn't know- and had weird paintings with horses that look like this, limbs flailing:
Delacroix, Horse Frightened by Lightning 1825-9
Another guy that I have uber respect for is Basquiat who started out as a graffiti (street art) artist and was 'found' by Andy Warhol. There's a neat movie on him which I would recommend. He OD'd when he was in his late twenties which is sad. He was a great artist. (also not represented by my history class). Not many contemporary artists were...
Basquiat. 1982
This class was from 1800 to present. So that's why there aren't any classics here. If you're interested in seeing some more paintings, maybe leave a comment or shoot me a message. I never know what interests the people that read this thing are. If you are interested in more - I have a board on Pinterest (<---click) for that- but I haven't been using it much lately. There's about 200 images on there right now, which I plan on updating once exams are done.
Hope you are all having a swell week, and that exams are going well.
I am so pumped for summer guys.
Hugs and kisses for all!
H
No comments:
Post a Comment
I appreciate your comments & feedback!! Please feel free to leave some here.