[Jason Manley]

Ive visited two of their Ateliers (bougie studio and The Atelier) in Minneapolis. It is my humble opinion that if you want to learn to draw and paint traditionally that there is no better place to learn to do so. The results of their figure classes made my classes at the Illustration Academy(with the exception of skip liepke)and Ringling School of art look like fumbling amateurs. pure and simple...those people can representationally draw and paint from life incredibly well. go see their schools. you will understand what I mean.

they spend up to 34 THREE HOUR SESSIONS on one pose. they work at their pictures until they see them correctly...no fudging..no mistakes...they work toward visual understanding to a very high degree. one of my previous teachers was a student of that system and he was one of the two most sensitive people Ive ever known. Both of those people were heavily trained in drawing from life. Both saw things that we as students were barely noticing.

however...the students from the atelier schools tend to be very much the same in their work...while some have an incredible high level of quality, others are stale and flat in their subject matter and handling of the media. I suppose that can be said of any school. But, there is very little schooling on IDEA DEVELOPMENT in that system. It is their belief that an artist should first train the hand and eye and then....well that leads to images that are lacking in idea. Granted a simple head study in oil can floor me on occasion...heheheh..I think it is necessary to work on the creative aspects of imagery and the skills of eye and hand at the same time.

I had originally intended to be a painter in the tradition of the 19th century (hardest thing I ever attempted) but could not live my life as a starving artist. I realized that the Atelier system did not have the business connections that a larger private art institution did. I needed a place that would enable me to learn similar lessons and also have the job connection so I could live. From my visiting art schools I came to the conclusion that Ringling, Acad of Art in San Fran, Art Center, and SVA were the schools that would give me my best chance to do what I needed. Eventually I turned down my scholarship to Art Center and went to Ringling. I would not be doing what I now do if I had chosen a different path. However, it was not ringling that I owe for my meager skills....To be a great artist..or even a half decent one you need to immerse yourself in drawing and painting...but you also need to be in a place where others are doing the same thing...a place where you can find answers if you search hard enough....I had to search very hard at ringling..sometimes it was like pulling teeth..but not once did I fail to find what I needed. Im sure it is the same up there...the wealth of knowledge at a school like ringling and art center is more balanced about a wide range of business applications as well as development of idea and technical aspects of imagery but they do not allow you to draw and paint from life as much as you would at the atelier...if you want to be a gallery painter in the traditional sense then Id think that you would find more answers readily available at one of the Ateliers.

I hope that helps.


jason manley

[Jason Manley]

ps..I think that the list of schools accredited by arc stems from the same lineage as Ingres, charles gleyre, and jean leon gerome, paxton and gammell,...the watts system does not have that lineage to my knowledge...though the system looks similar to me.

jason

[Ben Barker]

http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/atelier_list.asp

This is the Art Renewal Center's list of "accredited" atelier schools. I didn't see Watts on the list. But I'm not sure what accredited means here. Usually it means they are certified by some major college screening organization from either the Eastern or the Western United States. I'm guessing this, rather, means that they have ARC's blessing.

What is everyone's opinion here? I, of course, mean University art programs versus Atelier programs.

-Which one provides the better education? Atelier's won't get you a degree, and they aren't as madly career oriented as colleges, but will they make you a better artist in the long run? Is that worth it?

-Are ateliers geared towards experienced artists, perhaps with a BFA already, who have "holes" in their art education? Or are they for 19 and 20 year old beginning artists as an alternative for the big University art schools?

-Has the university art education become, as according to ARC, a farce and a fraud since World War 2? Has hundreds of years of knowledge been nearly lost due to the way art is taught today? My university education has led me to somewhat agree when ARC states," Countless thousands of talented young people for many years, have been sent to thousands of university art deparments to be taught by people who know nothing about the art of painting and sculpture." Though I am not that venomous towards Universities, I have seen similar situations. What do you think?

Of course my reasons for asking are somewhat selfish. I am trying to decide whether to risk trying another University, or perhaps go a different route. I am interested in what the old pros here have to say, especially Ron Lemen, though I probably know his answer

Or anyone else's thoughts would be great.

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ben Barker ]

[mza]

I went to a convention where Jeff Watts did a demo and spoke of his methods.. He is a very skilled "illustrator". His approach is great for learning how to draw and paint believable figures from the imagination.
He lost credibility for me, when he started comparing his techniques to classical 19th century painters..He kept going on about how HE was the only one who knows the classical methods of painting.
Not that I know a lot, but I've studied under some great Chinese artists who's philosophies came from the Russian artists (i.e. Illya Repin /Fechin).
Just from the Watts Lecture, I knew his knowledge of that type of painting was very limited...

~just another wanna-be painter, turned video game artist.

[Ben Barker]

Jason: Thanks, that is pretty interesting. Maybe I will visit one of the ateliers. I'm still trying to decide if the figure is the end-all for art. I can see how other people think that, but I can't swallow it as easily. You probably must accept it whole heartedly to be successful in the 19th century style. The figure is probably the single most interesting subject in the history of art, but your point about imagination is very important. I suppose you can't talk about ateliers vs. universities without coming to that particular debate eventually.

mza: I'm not even going to touch that one.

[aquamire]

I hope to be attending Watts within the next year or so, as it teaches both classical means of painting but also more modern illustrative techniques geared more towards the modern commercial artist. That might be why its not listed on ARC, as its not exactly a classical ateliar.

I like ateliars more than universities or colleges because for one, your with a closer knit group of people. You get to know the instructors really well and they can better aid you in you development in that manner. They're also a hell of a lot cheaper and you definately get the bang for your buck.

I have to agree with ARC that a lot of universities and colleges dont seem to teach much at all in the area of classical technique. A lot of the people I see come out of such programs with a Bacherlors degree or Masters, cant draw or paint at all, and go to work at a fast food restaurant after paying for a $50,000 art education. Its an atrocity.

[spooge demon]

I would like to get Greg Pro to talk some about Fred Fixler. He is the illustrator that begat the lineage that has come to watts atelier. It is an illustration heritage, clearly.

You have to study it all. I went to AC and then to cal art institute. The structure then the shapes. That on top of product design and you have the animal that is me, for better or worse.

To be "all you can be" (sorry) you must not have any gaps. Work hard to make your weaknesses into strengths.

I am pursuing more academic figure skills now. It has been really lacking.

As much as I might bitch about ACCD, there was enough other stuff going on that I was exposed to a wider variety of things than had I gone to a render-the-kneecap cloister. It's all trade-offs, no school can be all things.

But consider ID. It is very academic in drawing, but drawing objects, not the figure. But be careful, the need for those drawing skills might have gone away due to the digital angle. If so, ID programs may have done away with the drawing.

To me the illustration that is taught now is a little lost. It does not know what it wants to be. It kind of fails at everything. It was kind of a half-assed fine art program at accd. Very pretentious, but as I said, it was a reasonable broad education.

Please don't take anything you read on ARC seriously. They have no idea what they are talking about. I might not either, but at least I am open to that possibility.

I suspect that accreditation is just their approval. The work must have the surface appearance of their razor thin definition of "approved" art. Don't cheat yourself.

[jr]

hey spooge, i guess sva, the school i'm attending, is just the opposite of your school. Most of the work is figurative, so much emphasis is placed on working on the figure and editorial illustration.

[MadSamoan]

The lineage of the ateliers (at least the California Art Institute and Watts Atelier) goes further than Fred Fixler, into the Art Students League in NY with his mentor, Frank Reilly and Reilly's instructor, George Bridgeman.

Watts has touched on the subject of accreditation and it's not in the student's best interest. The main advantage to some accreditation programs is that it makes the school eligible for government loans/grants/programs etc.. but it also means alot of administration overhead and raising tuition fees.

Just look at the potential schools' instructors' body of work, most of them have website galleries and compare it with the direction that you want to go and compare the tuitions. In my opinion, the ateliers offer first rate instruction for practically a steal.

[Ben Barker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by spooge demon:

But consider ID. It is very academic in drawing, but drawing objects, not the figure. But be careful, the need for those drawing skills might have gone away due to the digital angle. If so, ID programs may have done away with the drawing.

---

It's interesting you should mention that. I went to the University of Cincinnati design college, which prided itself on being a fantastic college for ID. Their whole persona, which they pitched frequently, revolved around technology. They had a computer lab with a 50,000 dollar rendering farm, they had a 5 axes mill for car prototypes, they had this and that. And after a cursory excercise in cutting and pasting gouache chips in foundations, they started integrating the computer more and more into our curriculum. It always felt forced. Sometimes my schedule was downright polluted with computer courses that taught the expert nothing new, and confused the newbies into rebellion against the technology, and hatred of themselves for not knowing which buttons to push in some arbitrary GUI. It was a lot of wasted time.

Looking at the seniors work, at what we all were working towards, you could see how so many had learned nothing. Of course, there were the individuals that had pushed themselves, and were becoming fantastic designers. But most had turned a premature drawing ability into pages of ugly renders. Digital mud, like poorly mixed paint, filled their demo reels.

The day I quit that school was the day my drawing teacher, the one class I still liked, introduced Illustrator in the curriculum. We had started rendering small objects, handheld tools, only to have them degenerate into simple contours and silhouettes on the computer. Most had not even been able to produce a satisfactory thumbnail, but we had to press on. I went to that school looking for an education in computer animation, and instead got an appreciation for natural medias, and grew to despise how computers influenced the program.

Other ID programs are probably not as obscene. UC seemed very preoccupied with technology. I still want to be an animator. I love it, I would rather do nothing else. But it seems like the University moved too fast. I think now that undergraduate, at least undergraduate, should be traditional. So the question remains how to get that training.

Illustration seems to be the premier choice, since the Fine Art crits were always a joke, and everyone cut loose with their own ridiculous "style" as an excuse to make poor art. But Spooge may be right about Illustration. Hmm, I might have to re-think the game plan again.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Ben Barker ]

[mza]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ben Barker:
So the question remains how to get that training.

---

From my experience, the more skills you can accumulate in school the better... ID,drawing,painting,computers. I see art students (whatever their major maybe) trying to finish school too quickly, wanting to work on their own stuff...specializing too soon.
You have the rest of your lives to work, why rush school??? It's not much different.. you still get assignments, be told what to do, the difference is you're expected to produce "A" quality work on a daily basis.

I started art school as an animation major, graduated in illustration, but spent the last 2 years in the FA department studying academic painting....It's all relevant. Not until I started working did I learn 3D...what a great concept I'm getting paid to learn Maya!

My advice to those in art school:
Take the teachers you want to take, get the most use of the equipment, get a solid foundation.
Art school only gives you the skills to "see" like an artist. You can spend the rest of your life, learning how to be one.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: mza ]