this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)
Creative
4259 readers
1 users here now
Beehaw's section for your art and original content, other miscellaneous creative works you've found, and discussion of the creative arts and how they happen generally. Covers everything from digital to physical; photography to painting; abstract to photorealistic; and everything in between.
(It's not mandatory, but we also encourage providing a description of your image(s) for accessibility purposes! See here for a more detailed explanation and advice on how best to do this.)
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In my experience, it depends a lot on the course and the instructor. I've had art history classes that were literally just "memorize the artist, title, and year for the test". And I've had drawing and painting classes with instructors that were absolutely convinced that the best way was to force not just fundamental techniques but subject and theme - like "do a version of Magritte's Lovers". These all sucked, and I love Magritte.
On the other hand, I've had courses where the instructors were focused on the bigger picture as it were - art history through the lens of local context in time and place, drawing and painting classes where it didn't matter so much what came out, as long as the fundamentals were there. These were much more informative and useful - discussions were much more lively in the history classes, and the critique sessions in the skills courses tended to have more eager participation and more opportunities to be inspired by other students.