#art professors

"Now I hate to tell you this but you've got phthalo blue all over your face"

My professor, undeterred: -I wonder if someone has tried? Do we have a chemistry program at the university??

You’ll need to do three color studies, 25 sketches, a life sized self portrait, and exact replicas of the Mona Lisa and Michelangelo’s David. Due tomorrow, 8 am.

Interesting- I’m not really certain as to how teaching art history should change for the better in the aspect of how women are portrayed. The article mostly discusses the issue, with out really proposing a solution. I say art history and not just ancient art because examples like those found within the article pervade all of art history- especially those works within the canon. Depictions of the female form are some of the most avidly portrayed subjects in art, even in pre-history. But with many of these works portraying crimes against women, using the form as a symbol to be objectified, or just victimization one really has to look past and understand the context and cultural significance of that work. Do these ancient or anticipated works depict and promote rape culture in todays society? In my honest opinion I think not, but it’s mostly a matter of perception in these cases of true antiquity. I tend to view many of these kinds of works as portraying tragic narratives (or a specific mythos) and as being relics that emphasize the cultural traditions of different societies. We can tell a lot about the social structure of the society based upon how they portray their figures. We can infer about their thoughts on women from works like this- and use them to power our current dilemma. We have examples of these “me too” moments from thousands of years ago and they can help us now. They can be tools for feminism- visual proof of women being ranked so low within the society that they are portrayed as the constant victim to man/or beast, or even as the other female archetypes (mother, maiden, crone, seductress etc). I guess we just need to continue the conversation and I firmly believe that our Historians and instructors should be leading the conversation for their students- there is a common theme within art history courses of not really getting that “deep” when talking about works of art. There tends to be a focus on memorization rather than comprehension. You discuss predominantly objective information about the work itself, but what we need to do in addition is really discuss in depth the context and the society in which it was made. Maybe we even need historical survey classes where that’s all you do? Would enjoy polite discourse.

I wouldn't put too much stock into art professors' opinions.  The DEAN of my art college told our class that artists who aren't willing to exchange sex for gallery space are just being arrogant.  -____-;  Dude!  You're a freaking priest!  In a Catholic university!  Don't tell me to whore myself out!  >X<!!!  And that's when I knew for sure, that I had had ENOUGH of the elitist art gallery world.  There are plenty of ways to be an artist outside of art galleries.