I've got a lot of opinions on the state of arts education in America, and my basic position is that they need to be dropped from colleges entirely and reformed. Art... is not "taught". It's not a trade per-se, it's an application of a talent. The modern commoditized education that college seeks to impart is a great fit for applied sciences, but lousy for arts.
The correct outlet for the advanced study of arts is not the "university". It's the "conservatory", and it operates on a very different philosophy. Simply, they do not accept middling candidates. Openings are scarce and admission competitive.
If it was my call, here's what would happen:
The Department of Education would cut off all support for the current slate of state funded public art colleges. They would then open a new program for funding a National Arts Conservatory, which would admit a subset of the former arts colleges into the program.
The National Arts Conservatory would have tiers of participating school branches.
Fourth Tier - Center for Performance Arts
Virtually any college can host a branch, but the program can only award bachelors degrees in music and theater. This allows schools to keep their bands and drama programs intact.
Third Tier - State Arts Conservatory
Limited to ONE campus per state. Can award teaching degrees for primary/secondary art education. Can award masters degrees for performance arts. Can award bachelors degrees for non-performance arts.
Second Tier - National Arts Conservatory Branch Campus
Two branches, one each controlled by the CSU and SUNY systems respectively. Can award doctorates in performance arts, and masters in non-performance arts.
First Tier - National Arts Conservatory of the United States of America
Hosted by the Smithsonian Institute. The conferring of the title "doctor of arts" in non-performance arts is by simple "tres bien" vote by the directors of the Smithsonian's art museums, conferring annually to review submissions (each submission must be sponsored by someone already holding "doctor of arts"). If you can convince any three of them that you have artistic talent, congratulations, you're a doctor of non-performance arts.
In France there's literally just ONE (at least for music): Conservatoire National Supérieur de Musique et de Danse de Paris
You either get in or your career is over before it starts.
Oh, sure, there are other schools... but they don't matter. If you didn't go to the national conservatory, you might as well just show up to auditions with no degree at all. You might get some gigs, might become a regular member. But you're never going to be a director or a conductor of a program worthy of note.
And they're even MORE snooty on the non-performance arts side. To be blunt, it seems like the criteria in France for being recognized as a good artist is to remain relevant AFTER YOU DIE.
There is a saying in Russian Ballet:
"Want to be the best? Be the best. There's more waiting in line."
("bud' luchshim!"..... annnnnd someone runs off the staging crying; they do not fuck around)
It's a complete inversion of how arts are treated in the US. They work from the stance of the OPENINGS being scarce and leave it to the aspirants to motivate themselves. It's ruthless, but it produces the best.
Art "education" is different from all other forms of education in that it's basically a screening process rather than instruction. You don't teach people to paint or sculpt, you just say "impress me". Exclusivity is a feature, not a bug. Ideally you'd get rid of the non-performance art schools entirely and just have competitions and galleries of increasing selectivity and prestige.
No.
I've got a lot of opinions on the state of arts education in America, and my basic position is that they need to be dropped from colleges entirely and reformed. Art... is not "taught". It's not a trade per-se, it's an application of a talent. The modern commoditized education that college seeks to impart is a great fit for applied sciences, but lousy for arts.
The correct outlet for the advanced study of arts is not the "university". It's the "conservatory", and it operates on a very different philosophy. Simply, they do not accept middling candidates. Openings are scarce and admission competitive.
If it was my call, here's what would happen:
The Department of Education would cut off all support for the current slate of state funded public art colleges. They would then open a new program for funding a National Arts Conservatory, which would admit a subset of the former arts colleges into the program.
The National Arts Conservatory would have tiers of participating school branches.
Virtually any college can host a branch, but the program can only award bachelors degrees in music and theater. This allows schools to keep their bands and drama programs intact.
Limited to ONE campus per state. Can award teaching degrees for primary/secondary art education. Can award masters degrees for performance arts. Can award bachelors degrees for non-performance arts.
Two branches, one each controlled by the CSU and SUNY systems respectively. Can award doctorates in performance arts, and masters in non-performance arts.
Hosted by the Smithsonian Institute. The conferring of the title "doctor of arts" in non-performance arts is by simple "tres bien" vote by the directors of the Smithsonian's art museums, conferring annually to review submissions (each submission must be sponsored by someone already holding "doctor of arts"). If you can convince any three of them that you have artistic talent, congratulations, you're a doctor of non-performance arts.
That's a nice idea and everything, but this is too centralized imho.
Too centralized?
In France there's literally just ONE (at least for music): Conservatoire National Supérieur de Musique et de Danse de Paris
You either get in or your career is over before it starts.
Oh, sure, there are other schools... but they don't matter. If you didn't go to the national conservatory, you might as well just show up to auditions with no degree at all. You might get some gigs, might become a regular member. But you're never going to be a director or a conductor of a program worthy of note.
And they're even MORE snooty on the non-performance arts side. To be blunt, it seems like the criteria in France for being recognized as a good artist is to remain relevant AFTER YOU DIE.
There is a saying in Russian Ballet:
"Want to be the best? Be the best. There's more waiting in line."
("bud' luchshim!"..... annnnnd someone runs off the staging crying; they do not fuck around)
It's a complete inversion of how arts are treated in the US. They work from the stance of the OPENINGS being scarce and leave it to the aspirants to motivate themselves. It's ruthless, but it produces the best.
Art "education" is different from all other forms of education in that it's basically a screening process rather than instruction. You don't teach people to paint or sculpt, you just say "impress me". Exclusivity is a feature, not a bug. Ideally you'd get rid of the non-performance art schools entirely and just have competitions and galleries of increasing selectivity and prestige.