Over the years a lot of you have asked me
whether I would recommend studying art or not.
It might have to do with this video…
But questions like these are not easy to answer,
as a lot of factors make things different
for every single case and I don’t want to
generalize my experience.
Some of you might have already concluded my
point of view on studying art from earlier
videos.
Nevertheless, I thought it might be helpful
to summarize some memorable anecdotes and
explain why studying art in the end was not
my cup of tea.
Just for the record, I will mainly focus on
the stuff that I had issues with.
By all means this is not supposed to be an
all encompassing summary.
I am working as a freelance artist now and
in retrospect I really don’t care that much
anymore about what happened.
But I believe still these stories could give
an insight into what it was like when I still
actively studied art.
I had good times and I even made great friends,
but overall I decided for myself that I want
to go a different direction.
So how did things get started?
Getting into art school
In 2012 I started studying art at a university
in Germany.
At that time I had several applications for
different art and design schools behind me.
The first rejection was clearly because I
didn’t know what to include in my portfolio.
I had just gathered what I had done up until
that point which is a dead giveaway for most
art and design schools.
So after that first crushing experience I
went to numerous portfolio guidance classes
which were really eye-opening to me: Because
no matter where I went, art school or design
school, they all focused on the same thing:
You can’t do kitch, you can’t do cliches.
Everything that is fun basically is forbidden,
because how dare you to have fun?
Art is serious and working as a serious artist
you can’t have fun!
You work and work isn’t fun.
Some attendants of these courses were even
brought to tears as the profs told them they
should quit their part time job because art
takes dedication and with another job they
wouldn’t show that enough to get accepted.
They were looking for things they could call
“innovative”, something conceptual.
What those terms mean exactly was of course
up to the professors.
Execution and appeal were usually secondary.
At the end of the day it was more important
that you’re able to “sell” your art,
as in tell a story to convince people that
your work is meaningful and worth something.
Between the lines, your ability to sell your
art held more importance and got you further
than the quality of your work itself.
This became pretty clear when I visited one
of those guidance sessions with my twin brother
and we were told that regardless of our work,
if anything only one could get in as they
wouldn’t need the “same person twice.”
We could have shown whatever, the prof thought
it was unoriginal because we are twins.
As I experienced it, both art and design revealed
themselves to be about learning how to present
and sell art, not about getting better at
producing it on a technical level.
Ironically the term “innovative” was used
so frequently in all those portfolio guidance
classes that it became a cliche in and of
itself.
For my final attempt I applied for design
and art, each at a different university in
a different city.
Thanks to the guidance classes I was prepared
and only brought what was adequate.
No comics, or manga, no kitsch, no cliche.
So nothing figurative, nothing decorative
and no landscapes, just to name a few things
that German art schools have a bias against.
For time reasons, my portfolio was aimed more
at design than art but I used it for both
applications.
Ironically, in the end I was rejected in design
but accepted in art to become a teacher.
And I was actually happy with that.
The university was closer and I thought it
was a nice compromise, because even though
doing the portfolio felt so weird and out
of place, becoming a teacher at a public school
at least seemed like a safe job compared to
a graphic designer.
And most importantly I believed that studying
art to become a teacher would focus on exactly
that: The skills you need to teach an art
class.
The skills you need to be a mentor, a teacher
and a role model if you will.
Not exclusively of course, but I thought my
program would aim to prepare us for our future
in schools, while giving a healthy dose of
context, art history and contemporary art.
After all, I wasn’t studying to become a
freelancer.
I already gave up on the thought that they
would teach us basic skills like anatomy,
because at no point did they appear to care
for that.
But I was still a little bit hopeful that
there would be a few courses that teach us
how to get better at art.
Consequently, I didn’t expect them to push
our work towards the contemporary german art
market.
I believe a teacher’s artwork isn’t required
to fit in a museum, but should reflect the
teacher's skill, so future students know who
they are learning from.
But I was wrong.
Not really Hogwarts and my first class: Painting
Apart from art history and didactics, the
program of studying art at my Uni roughly
was divided into:
photography
painting
graphic
sculpture
You can imagine them like the 4 houses in
Harry Potter: every one of these disciplines
had a representative professor, but unlike
Harry potter there was neither Dumbledore
nor Snape and also it wasn’t very magical.
The first “house” I visited was painting.
I thought it was a good start because that
was what interested me the most.
There was no order of what specific painting
courses to take so usually you’d have students
of older semesters sitting together with a
few newbies like myself.
In our first lesson we watched a documentary
about David Hockney, who first gained success
through controversies in the sixties.
One thing that stuck out to me in this documentary
was that he drastically changed his opinion
on the superiority of photography over painting
– or vice versa – many many many times.
Not only did he keep switching between the
two, but he always made it a point to condemn
whatever he wasn’t practicing at the time.
Nowadays as the documentary showed, he has
settled on painting again and has an assistant
that brings and mixes his paints.
The teacher stopped the film periodically
to start a discussion.
So based on what we had just seen I got curious
how people were happy to follow his contradictory
statements, when he himself just trashes a
medium after switching away from it.
When he says - for example - that photography
has failed, as out of million photos taken
few are memorable according to him and even
those are most often accidental.
How could I then proceed to appreciate what
a brilliant photographer he is.
I perceived a lack of consistency and asked
- admittedly a bit naively – how people
could still take him seriously.
And that was a huge mistake.
As if I had just insulted their religious
leader, my older colleagues started dogpiling:
"How dare you ask such a stupid question,
you should be happy this man is still painting
in his age" was thrown at me.
“You can’t judge anything, because have
you ever seen a Hockney original in person!?”
“You lack respect, educate yourself before
coming with crap like that!”
It was like a crossfire of wild accusations
and assumptions to a point I couldn't even
explain my statement, and an explanation on
their end was never offered as well.
What a weird way to start my university career…
After everyone calmed down, the teacher continued
with the movie and the rest of those 2 hours
I just said nothing and waited for the lesson
to end.
I get that I must have come across like someone
who intentionally wants to disrespect an artist,
when I just was curious.
How can people take such a fun and open thing
as art and take it that seriously to a degree
it feels like a cult
Oh, and ironically around that time Hockney
himself was questioning the skills of other
artists and art schools in general.
Anyway, it was a sickening first impression
and we didn’t paint of course as that was
something that we should do on our own at
home or after class without any guidance or
teachers…
So I stopped visiting that class at some point,
instead focusing on the other disciplines
The House of Graphique
Graphic was about drawing; or rather anything
that would happen on flat paper as opposed
to painting where you create structure with
thick paint.
So in principle watercolor would fit the bill,
but everything in those courses was focused
on linocut and etching.
So if you didn’t learn how to draw for yourself
at home, you wouldn’t learn it here as well.
Same for the sculpting courses, which always
reminded me more of the kind of work Homer
Simpson put together in the episode “Mom
and Pop Art”.
In some courses I would learn how to put metal
plates together, though.
After all, regardless of what I visited, I
learned it is always better to put less effort
in your work than too much.
As there was no one teaching us actual skills
they also weren’t expecting much in that
regard.
Just as before, it was only about the concept.
When I joined a class about self portraits,
it went like this:
I visited the introductory lesson, then we
had to work alone from home or at uni for
half a year.
You’d then watch as your initial ambition
gets transformed to an “innovative” blob
through the feedback sessions throughout the
semester.
It was about expression and gestures because
with those it's easier to pretend there was
a concept with it, compared to an accurately
drawn depiction of yourself.
When visiting a life drawing session it was
nowhere near to the point of learning anatomy,
but only to get something - anything - on
your paper.
That's why there was always a time limit of
5-10 minutes.
It was not about learning how to draw bodies,
it was about expression and gestures.
Which is okay if that’s your thing, but
everybody got pushed in that direction with
no exceptions.
I got criticized so harshly every time when
I showed up with something that I put effort
into, but after a few years of trying to change
their minds, I gave in and just handed in
stains on paper for my exams.
Stuff that was thrown on paper a few minutes
before class always got more appreciation
than something that took days or weeks of
planning and work.
Anyway, things were going okay then, great
even in some classes, as the production of
art like that was quick and easy and the assessment
was often benevolent and very esoteric.
But in the back of my mind I always felt like
an alien.
I got used to how things were done, what was
expected and I learned to deliver, but every
time when we had to show our work and talk
about it, I noticed how much I was interested
in totally different things.
This was when I started fully separating my
personal art output from the things I did
in art school.
In my first 4 semesters I also took a lot
of photography classes and because I wasn’t
forced to “dumb down” myself, I had the
best time there.
Photography had very open “do what you want”
classes, and we even learned technical skills
in them.
Apart from these 3 houses so far, I also took
a very special, interdisciplinary sculpture
class.
Sculpture and Art Meets Computer Science
When I heard that there was a course about
art and computer science, I don’t know about
you, but video games were the first things
that crossed my mind.
After all it was presented as a course where
art and computer science students would work
together on projects.
It would have been too good to be true and
of course it was.
Things turned weird quickly when right after
getting to know each other the professor showed
us Gary Hill’s “Figuring Grounds”, a
10 minute video of two guys brabbling, smacking
their lips and making baby noises while wildly
gesticulating.
Those were some looong and awkward 10 minutes.
I’ve linked the video in the description.
I challenge you to go for the full experience
without skipping ahead, let me know in the
comments how far you made it.
The atmosphere among the ART students was
cheerful.
Some enjoyed the video and some like myself
had just gotten used to seeing stuff like
that, so they didn’t really care.
The computer science students showed noticeable
discomfort however.
They felt pranked.
And why wouldn’t they…
It would have been hard to explain to my parents...or
even anyone I know, the content of what we
saw there and especially why we saw it, because
that's something I have no clue about to this
day.
One of them asked how we can take art like
this seriously, or rather how credibility
in art is defined.
That’s where the discussion got personal
quickly, because remember: you can’t question
the authorities.
It reminded me a lot of that first painting
class years before and I began siding with
the computer science students.
A huge argument erupted between them and the
art students.
Each made their case, One criticized how art
has distanced itself from the people to a
point no one cares anymore or just laughs
about it.
I remember that I brought up how “what music
is” gets at least somewhat democratically
chosen by popularity, in contrast to “what
art is”.
That gets chosen by rich snobs and therefore
is more out of touch.
The art students were justifying their positions:
That it’s the lack of open mindedness or
education that let the computer science crowd
to feel their way, but at no point was any
agreement in sight.
Shit really hit the fan though when a computer
science student compared the brabbling video
to taking a dump in the woods and putting
a flag with “art” in it.
For the art students that went too far and
after that heavy argument the session ended.
And I found myself wondering how you could
have a total lack of empathy towards people,
who are not used to regularly seeing and praising
art like this.
I mean... having a few questions after watching
10 minutes of two bearded guys brabbling shouldn’t
be that unusual, should it?
I felt like an alien even more..
In the next weeks of collaborating I was often
embarrassed for the field I was studying.
Ironically that whole course was actually
about highlighting art and how other industries
like computer science could benefit from the
innovative approach of artists.
And it could have worked, if there was just
a willingness for compromis.
But in the end it just ended up with the computer
science students getting used by the artists
to realize their artsy projects..
In one last desperate attempt to unify us,
the professor talked about how important art
was: something about russian ballet dancers,
that gave hope during hard times and lots
of other stuff she thought would be empowering.
The whole hour of that speech she had something
hidden underneath a cloth and once she was
done talking she lifted the veil to uncover
half a dead pig.
Well...Let me know in the comments if you
have had a course in school that ended with
half a carcass, rotting at room temperature
to prove a point, because I have.
She said it was a gift for that one computer
science student that had asked if poop in
a forest was art, so he could throw a barbecue
party with it.
Obviously that attempt didn’t work the way
she planned it, and after this session he
didn’t show up anymore.
And just when we started to wonder where he
was he emailed all of us:
He was expelled from the class and was banned
from all art facilities.
Apparently one art student was offended by
his remarks to the extent she didn’t want
to share the same room with him.
In the mail he apologized for asking that
infamous question about the definition of
art and wished us all the best, ending on
a note that as he researched he found out
that there is shit that is art.
It was crushing to read that mail and it confirmed
my experience that you aren’t allowed to
question art.
But we still had to go back to our projects.
I was working on that book I showed in an
older video, the one that represents a picture
through code.
It was really a useless and dumb idea, really
simple to execture if you deal with the topic,
but as my professors don’t usually deal
with topics outside their bubble, they swallowed
every piece of it and it was highly praised,
even among the prof from painting class.
I talk a little bit more about it in my video
“What do you do in art school”, just follow
the card in the top right.
Based on my experiences, studying art at university
is about selling concepts, not learning how
to execute them well and that is something
I recommend to consider before applying.
I was constantly lying about what I genuinely
felt was crap and presented it with confidence.
It was abstract enough to sound plausible
so the professors and classmates were just
willing to accept it.
No further questions, nothing.
It would have been easy, if it didn’t feel
so stupid.
I wondered how often art has been created
with that same pretense.
I had a huge problem with the credibility
of art.
If the focus is on selling a concept, the
salesman will tell you what you want to hear.
And with art you can make up anything you
want, because how are you supposed to check,
especially when you can’t even question
it in class.
Do not talk about Baselitz
So we’ve learned so far that trying to question
the consistency of what is claimed about art
or the artist gets you shut down immediately.
Another curious case of that was in a painting
class.
A pretty rubbish work that I adapted to fit
in was compared to Baselitz and I was told
to study him in order to make him a point
of reference for my work.
I read interviews and found that he made some
very controversial and stupid remarks around
that time.
In one interview in particular Baselitz said
that women, despite being in the majority
among art students nowadays, are never actually
able to be artists.
In his opinion it was proven by history and
he continued that women were never as successful
in art as men in terms of money.
Apart from that obviously sexist nonsense
I wondered:
Would I be allowed to question the artist
based on that statement in class?
And if we were to take aspects of it seriously,
what would that mean?
If money equals impact and success, or like
Baselitz put it: “even constitutes an artist”,
then that definition would mean the relevancy
of art doesn’t depend on the art itself.
Rather it depends on how much people are willing
to pay for it.
As a consequence, contemporary artists then
have to appeal not to themselves but to the
rich, hurting their credibility as the intention
becomes so obvious.
So I wanted to talk about that topic, especially
since my professor was female, I was curious
about her perspective.
And as you can guess already, immediately
when I mentioned Baselitz and what he said
in the interview I got shut down by a fellow
student.
It wasn’t "appropriate to talk about issues
like that".
She questioned what my goal with that question
was and whether I wanted to stir the pot,
implying it came across that way and I shouldn’t
want to be a troublemaker.
And at the time, considering the reactions
I got so far every single time others or I
asked unwanted questions, I stayed silent
about it after all.
As much as I disagree with Baselitz’ statements
in the interview, I still can’t help but
think about the connection he made between
money and the value of contemporary art.
Even if we are often led to believe the importance
of an artwork depends on its historical impact,
the importance of art goes hand in hand with
its monetary value, especially when it comes
to contemporary art.
It has developed into or at least shows similarities
to a stock market, where investors buy the
potential next hot artwork to maybe sell it
on at a higher price or keep it as financial
security.
And contemporary artists probably are well
aware of that fact and work towards being
the next hot thing.
The common person on the other hand has no
impact on the art discourse and under that
light, it’s completely understandable why
someone would feel detached from what is considered
Art with capital A. The reason why a white
canvas, a duct taped banana or an unmade bed
is worth millions of dollars in a gallery
is far more complex than just to say it's
a great piece of art.
And don’t get me wrong: I still believe
art is everything you call art.
The term Art is not an endorsement but it
is a category that shifts the context of whatever
you want.
As I see it, a toilet can be a toilet but
if you put it in the category “Art” through
an exhibition for example, it becomes comparable
to other works of art, however useful having
that discussion is to have.
Does it make it worth a million?
Only if someone is willing to pay that.
And if investors see a chance for profit they
may do so.
The irrelevant toilet suddenly becomes the
million dollar toilet, and just like the “supreme
brick”, it turns into something that is
highly irrational, where everybody talks about
it, demand rises and the investors are proven
right.
The quality of art is irrelevant for the price.
Considering where we are today I believe it's
pointless to argue about what is and what
isn't art, because collectors with far more
money will influence that discussion by buying
whatever they see fit.
Art can be just anything, good/ bad, important
or irrelevant, valuable or worthless.
Anyway, there is a lot more that I have gone
through but I fear this video is already long
enough.
I hope I could give you another perspective
on whether or not to study art.
Keep in mind what I described is only my personal
experience from studying art at one specific
university in Germany.
It might be totally different for you, so
I always recommend going to portfolio guidance
classes before you apply for any school to
make sure you know what you’re signing up
for.
Also I have to stress that there will be a
big difference between the art you produce
while studying and what you’ll produce afterwards.
I did internships at schools and that work
was great usually.
So it might be worth pushing through, even
though I didn’t have the strength for that.
Let me know your opinion!
Are you thinking about studying art or doing
so right now?
Have you experienced something similar or
was it totally different?
Write a comment below.
Thanks so much for watching and I hope to
see you next time :)
