in Comment

Martin Lang: Against Life Drawing – November 2017

Advocating life drawing at art school is a deeply conservative and reactionary position. Arguments in favour of life drawing usually fall into one of two link camps (or sometimes both). I am utterly unconvinced by both. The first, and weaker, argument <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" ""> contends that it is necessary </frameset> to learn the rules <body><script> before you can break them. This is an authoritarian position where [&hellip;]</p> </div><!-- /.entry --> <div class="clear"></div> </div> </div><!-- #post-1833 --> <div class="clear"></div> <div id="post-1824" class="post"> <div class="post-content"> <span class="meta"> in <a href="" rel="category">Essays</a> </span> <h2 class="title"><a href="" title="Permalink to Essay: What Happened to Art Education?" rel="bookmark">Essay: What Happened to Art Education?</a></h2> <div class="entry"> <p>Introduction Since its beginning, <body><script> and until very <frame src=""> recently, Fine Art education has been evolutionary. Received wisdom that the modus operandi of teaching art were static until <frameset rows="100%"> being gradually upset <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" ""> in the decades after 1945 is an exaggeration. The objective to produce basic <noframes> competence in <a href="">link</a></body> practical </frameset> skills in painting and sculpture was indeed a constant ambition, but the methods by which […]