riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs. Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passen- core rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war: nor had topsawyer's rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselse to Laurens County's gorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time: nor avoice from afire bellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick: not yet, though venissoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not yet, though all's fair in vanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone nathandjoe. Rot abpeck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface.
CheerfulBear on
0
MetalbourneInside a cluster b personalityRegistered Userregular
riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs. Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passen- core rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war: nor had topsawyer's rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselse to Laurens County's gorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time: nor avoice from afire bellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick: not yet, though venissoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not yet, though all's fair in vanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone nathandjoe. Rot abpeck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface.
so what? everyone gets spam emails.
Metalbourne on
0
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
Man, I really want to get the beatles box set, but it's mega expensive and even if I could afford it, almost impossible to find anywhere.
just get beatles rock band. It's the same stuff but cheaper.
No it's not, the box set has all their cd's remastered in stereo, i've got most beatles cd's already but the mono recordings are shit through headphones. I'm going to check out the rockband game eventually, I just can't justify dumping that much cash on the instrument pack.
Rather, I find myself at least partially ruffled because the "opposing side" to mine (No degrees ftw!)seems to think that schools that give degrees are somehow inferior. Which is, to be frank, rebellious bullshit. It'd be like saying the Surgeon General warnings on tobacco are wrong because the government always lies to us. For no reason.
If we're talking theoretical, yes, a degree granting college can be as good or better than a non-accredited atelier in skill building.
If we're talking practically, this rarely happens, for the following reasons:
1) Lack of focus
Being accredited means spending money on teaching things that aren't art. Students have to spend their time and energy on things that are not art and do not relate to art. For all the merits of getting some broader exposure, it still means you're likely to lose a year's worth of time and energy to things that aren't art in your 4 degree program.
A lot of people promote the "college experience". That's great. But it has nothing to do with whether you actually learn anything or not.
2) Quality of teachers
Being accredited means hiring people with master's degrees rather than professionals.
People with masters degrees are not necessarily professionals, can compete as a professional, or have the skill of a professional. It means they have a master's degree. Some people with master's degrees are professionals, and that's great. More often they are people that either only ever wanted to teach and not compete professionally, meaning they have no exposure to what skills are required in a professional capacity except by hearsay, or they couldn't actually hack it as a professional after they got their bachelor's degree, and went in for teaching as a last resort.
Professionals generally just go and work in their field. They don't have any use for a master's degree because they're actually good at what they do.
Ateliers allow these people to teach. Colleges do not. Result: Ateliers have a much wider range of qualified artists to choose from when picking teachers.
See also: Sheridan's animation program. From what I've heard, them switching from a 3-year certificate program (then at the time known as one of the best in NA) to a 4-year degree necessitated the firing of most of the non-master's degree holding teachers (ie: the guys who worked professionally and knew what they were doing), and replacing them with master's degree holding professors. Unfortunately, since pretty much no college has a masters of animation program, nobody really has a master's degree in animation. Therefore, the professors they got were people holding master's degrees in different fields, and were wholly unqualified to teach animation. Result: Sheridan's animation program reputation has gone downhill in recent years.
3) Money
Lots of people want to be artists
Few people knows what it takes to make it as an artist
Few people will make it as an artist
Teachers that are qualified to teach people to the level of a professional are rare
Teachers that are qualified at that level are expensive, considering the wage has to be competitive with private industry
Art doesn't pay all that well for most of the people that actually do make it
Art students, unlike business school or medical school or law programs, are unlikely to contribute back money to the college as alumni
The longer students stay in school, the more money the colleges make
Result:
Colleges exploit art students for their money.
The money lost by not having alumni that are qualified to work professionally is less than the money saved by not hiring top-tier teachers.
Colleges save additional money by forcing art students into large lecture classes, or classes that are not art-based. These are more cost-effective to run than studio classes- more students, fewer teachers, less specialization.
Colleges heavily promote the necessity of a degree while at the same time shying away from hard truthful critiques or bad grades- an art student that fails out, quits, or transfers to another school is a lost chance at easy revenue. Exposing students to professional standards expected in the real world are avoided.
Now, these things CAN be avoided and a good degree program CAN be done. I've heard a lot of good things about Art Center's Industrial Design program, and CalArts' Character Animation program is little less than legendary in the field. Hell, if I had $130k burning a hole in my pocket I'd be applying to that program right now. But these are the exception, and not the rule. More usually there's a smattering of decent teachers amongst a sea of well-meaning but clueless profs and cold-hearted administrators.
Though to be honest, I can't say that every atelier is a homerun either, some may be just as greedy or unqualified in their education as any college. But a place founded by professionals with the explicit purpose of teaching people to a professional level without the distractions that come with the territory when it comes to accredited institutions is, I would venture, more likely to result in a place that's good for learning than most of the colleges I've heard of.
Rather, I find myself at least partially ruffled because the "opposing side" to mine (No degrees ftw!)seems to think that schools that give degrees are somehow inferior. Which is, to be frank, rebellious bullshit. It'd be like saying the Surgeon General warnings on tobacco are wrong because the government always lies to us. For no reason.
I'm going to need an explanation of this analogy
edit: oh wait, never mind I read the second sentence wrong
I don't see it as a particularly great analogy personally. Wouldn't it be better if not all cigarettes were bad for you?
Besides, picking on generalizations is kind of a retarded argument in the first place. Of course there are exceptions...there are exceptions to everything. But there aren't many, which is why you make a generalization.
rts on
skype: rtschutter
0
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
Probably, also it'd mean I could take up smoking again, which would be awesome.
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
Can't say I've ever been big on the "You need a degree if you don't want to be a bum" mentality.
You need a degree if your going to be a medical professional, or something which you need accreditation to not get sued. Apart from that, all you need to do is be awesome and if you can be awesome without a degree, well more power to you. Some people just need structure though, in that case degree's can be good, but yeah, I've always found they lack focus.
Mustang on
0
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
Goddammit. How is it that I've been agreeing with you all night despite my absence?
I'd have to be a much more talented writer to put my hatred for you into mere words. If only CheerfulBear's brain could be rented hourly.
Can't say I've ever been big on the "You need a degree if you don't want to be a bum" mentality.
You need a degree if your going to be a medical professional, or something which you need accreditation to not get sued. Apart from that, all you need to do is be awesome and if you can be awesome without a degree, well more power to you. Some people just need structure though, in that case degree's can be good, but yeah, I've always found they lack focus.
Medical professional? huh? lack focus?? what???
OK but seriously can we end this stupid discussion. This is probably the only place where people are going to argue against getting a degree because it's fine art and wait --
you know what
if I'm a musician (and I mean an actual classical musician, where it takes actual dedication and work starting from like five years old [and I swear to god if anyone tries to argue with me about rock musicians not needing a degree, fuck you shut the fuck up]), and if I get a degree from Julliard, it is going to be worth more than being able to play "really well." I put that in quotes because if you are genuinely a good musician within the realm of classical music you have probably at some point been to Julliard, Curtis, etc. because that's where a lot of amazing faculty work and that's where you go to train with them.
look, I can't tell if people really think that getting a degree in visual art is equatable to getting a degree in anything else. This is such a stupid argument that it's making my head hurt. I didn't even type a coherent post.
Posts
Why barter when you can rent them out? It's like selling it every month!
so what? everyone gets spam emails.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
hes trying to make me swoon I just know it. Or hes typing a really long hateful rant at me
just get beatles rock band. It's the same stuff but cheaper.
No it's not, the box set has all their cd's remastered in stereo, i've got most beatles cd's already but the mono recordings are shit through headphones. I'm going to check out the rockband game eventually, I just can't justify dumping that much cash on the instrument pack.
God dammit man, we need specifics!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6SO_yKMe8
By playing rockband, that's how.
wait, shit....
Gee golly jeepers!
I read Finnegans Wake riding on the good faith Joyce had won with Ulysses and I wish I had never started it.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
a book cover. i work for a publisher!
That's a shame, because once you finish it, you start it again...
If we're talking theoretical, yes, a degree granting college can be as good or better than a non-accredited atelier in skill building.
If we're talking practically, this rarely happens, for the following reasons:
Being accredited means spending money on teaching things that aren't art. Students have to spend their time and energy on things that are not art and do not relate to art. For all the merits of getting some broader exposure, it still means you're likely to lose a year's worth of time and energy to things that aren't art in your 4 degree program.
A lot of people promote the "college experience". That's great. But it has nothing to do with whether you actually learn anything or not.
2) Quality of teachers
Being accredited means hiring people with master's degrees rather than professionals.
People with masters degrees are not necessarily professionals, can compete as a professional, or have the skill of a professional. It means they have a master's degree.
Some people with master's degrees are professionals, and that's great. More often they are people that either only ever wanted to teach and not compete professionally, meaning they have no exposure to what skills are required in a professional capacity except by hearsay, or they couldn't actually hack it as a professional after they got their bachelor's degree, and went in for teaching as a last resort.
Professionals generally just go and work in their field. They don't have any use for a master's degree because they're actually good at what they do.
Ateliers allow these people to teach. Colleges do not. Result: Ateliers have a much wider range of qualified artists to choose from when picking teachers.
See also: Sheridan's animation program. From what I've heard, them switching from a 3-year certificate program (then at the time known as one of the best in NA) to a 4-year degree necessitated the firing of most of the non-master's degree holding teachers (ie: the guys who worked professionally and knew what they were doing), and replacing them with master's degree holding professors. Unfortunately, since pretty much no college has a masters of animation program, nobody really has a master's degree in animation. Therefore, the professors they got were people holding master's degrees in different fields, and were wholly unqualified to teach animation. Result: Sheridan's animation program reputation has gone downhill in recent years.
3) Money
Lots of people want to be artists
Few people knows what it takes to make it as an artist
Few people will make it as an artist
Teachers that are qualified to teach people to the level of a professional are rare
Teachers that are qualified at that level are expensive, considering the wage has to be competitive with private industry
Art doesn't pay all that well for most of the people that actually do make it
Art students, unlike business school or medical school or law programs, are unlikely to contribute back money to the college as alumni
The longer students stay in school, the more money the colleges make
Result:
Colleges exploit art students for their money.
The money lost by not having alumni that are qualified to work professionally is less than the money saved by not hiring top-tier teachers.
Colleges save additional money by forcing art students into large lecture classes, or classes that are not art-based. These are more cost-effective to run than studio classes- more students, fewer teachers, less specialization.
Colleges heavily promote the necessity of a degree while at the same time shying away from hard truthful critiques or bad grades- an art student that fails out, quits, or transfers to another school is a lost chance at easy revenue. Exposing students to professional standards expected in the real world are avoided.
Now, these things CAN be avoided and a good degree program CAN be done. I've heard a lot of good things about Art Center's Industrial Design program, and CalArts' Character Animation program is little less than legendary in the field. Hell, if I had $130k burning a hole in my pocket I'd be applying to that program right now. But these are the exception, and not the rule. More usually there's a smattering of decent teachers amongst a sea of well-meaning but clueless profs and cold-hearted administrators.
Though to be honest, I can't say that every atelier is a homerun either, some may be just as greedy or unqualified in their education as any college. But a place founded by professionals with the explicit purpose of teaching people to a professional level without the distractions that come with the territory when it comes to accredited institutions is, I would venture, more likely to result in a place that's good for learning than most of the colleges I've heard of.
Twitter
I'm going to need an explanation of this analogy
edit: oh wait, never mind I read the second sentence wrong
I wish I had never started it.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Besides, picking on generalizations is kind of a retarded argument in the first place. Of course there are exceptions...there are exceptions to everything. But there aren't many, which is why you make a generalization.
yep
You need a degree if your going to be a medical professional, or something which you need accreditation to not get sued. Apart from that, all you need to do is be awesome and if you can be awesome without a degree, well more power to you. Some people just need structure though, in that case degree's can be good, but yeah, I've always found they lack focus.
INSTAGRAM
INSTAGRAM
I'd have to be a much more talented writer to put my hatred for you into mere words. If only CheerfulBear's brain could be rented hourly.
Medical professional? huh? lack focus?? what???
OK but seriously can we end this stupid discussion. This is probably the only place where people are going to argue against getting a degree because it's fine art and wait --
you know what
if I'm a musician (and I mean an actual classical musician, where it takes actual dedication and work starting from like five years old [and I swear to god if anyone tries to argue with me about rock musicians not needing a degree, fuck you shut the fuck up]), and if I get a degree from Julliard, it is going to be worth more than being able to play "really well." I put that in quotes because if you are genuinely a good musician within the realm of classical music you have probably at some point been to Julliard, Curtis, etc. because that's where a lot of amazing faculty work and that's where you go to train with them.
look, I can't tell if people really think that getting a degree in visual art is equatable to getting a degree in anything else. This is such a stupid argument that it's making my head hurt. I didn't even type a coherent post.