Jump to content
aberdeen-music

"arts degrees are not worth the paper they're written on"


Spoonie

Recommended Posts

This is a really bizarre attitude to have. Everyone who does a degree is doing it "for selfish" purposes' date=' I think you will find the motivation behind the average uni student is educating themselves so they can get a better job and earn more money. If anything, arts degrees are less selfish, and I think you will find that a lot of arts graduates go on to have involvement in the public sector, and ultimately the arts have a huge part to play in the health of a society and are therefore more value for money for the taxpayer than a swarm of degree graduates working in office blocks for private companies.

The nazi's used to lock up, exile and murder artists precisely because of the importance of their role in a free, healthy society.[/quote']

I'm agreeing whole heartedly and thank fuck for this last post. I was getting concerned! Having gone to uni for completely selfish reasons I don't know what other way you are supposed to apply yourself upon applying fo H/E-F/E... Is it not the case that uni and education should be and is about personal development which will, on completion and if actively applied, lead to an involvement in the public/private sector that undoubtadley benefits someone somewhere?

There are some very retrogressive arguments on this thread

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok here is my take on things, my boy Andrew (you know him Spoonie) is currently doing his final year at Glasgow School of Art, the last time we spoke about it he had no intention of hitting the jobs market when his degree finishes, he intends eeking out a living as a working artist, he has already created a piece of art for Cumbernauld council and its in Cumbernauld Park.

It's foolish to regard an Arts degree as useless the paper part of it may not help but the knowlwdge gained can help to make our world a happier and more attractive place and there's nowt wrong wi that.

G...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok here is my take on things' date=' my boy Andrew (you know him Spoonie) is currently doing his final year at Glasgow School of Art, the last time we spoke about it he had no intention of hitting the jobs market when his degree finishes, he intends eeking out a living as a working artist, he has already created a piece of art for Cumbernauld council and its in Cumbernauld Park.

It's foolish to regard an Arts degree as useless the paper part of it may not help but the knowlwdge gained can help to make our world a happier and more attractive place and there's nowt wrong wi that.

G...[/quote']

Speaketh the Sage...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im in my final year of Art School, and I came here to learn how to be an artist, to improve my skills and I want to go on to a job in Visual Arts, be it in a gallery, an arts office or as a practicing artist.

Art School gives you the time and space to work out how to be an artist, how to make Art and how to critique your own work and that of your peers. It also allows you to study alongside like-minded people working in a variety of different ways. Its not easy, its not a joke, we are expected to do nine-to-five days, produce a massive body of work and at the end of the four years put on a show of professional standard.

To many people, the subjects they study are the subjects they study which, like a job, are put on hold at the end of the day. Artists are different, the subject is so personal to us that we are constantly thinking, recording, and critiquing, it is not a job, it is our lives, how we deal with things.

Also Art School is not an easy ride, it can be infuriating and at times soul destroying. If you dont do the work, you get a hard time, even when you do the hard time we have crits where your work can be slated picked apart and you can be left totally flattened, I know its happened to me many times. The real world for an artist is a difficult one as well, and we are taught that from the beginning. We know its hard we know its a struggle but there are still plenty of us willing to go on and try and make a living from it.

I just find it contrived that people are still having a go at art students. We study fine art for a purpose and too right it should be subsidised, simply because you cant understand it does not give anyone the right to start throwing the "TAX PAYERS MONEY? FOR "ART"?" banners across the rooftops. Art is as valid as every other subject, some people may not see it as such, but if there was no subsidised arts subjects we probably wouldnt see the films we do now, listen to the music we do and the world would be a rather drab place.

It is possible to be an artist without going to Art School, and many successfull artists didnt get a very good degree, but Art Schools provide the basis for people to blossom in critical thinking, and creative expression. If art was so redundant why do people still buy works, why do local authorities commission public artists to make work to brighten up public spaces.

The "Art Degree is not worth the paper it is written on" is something else indeed, it is a subject that cannot be fairly graded, the grading is purelly subjective therefor you might do really well at assessments at art school but be shit as an artist in the real world, and vice versa.

Basically that last paragraph is the only relevant part to the debate, but the rest backs up that studying Art and the level of degree you get at the end of it are purelly different kettles of fish entirelly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im in my final year of Art School' date=' and I came here to learn how to be an artist, to improve my skills and I want to go on to a job in Visual Arts, be it in a gallery, an arts office or as a practicing artist.

Art School gives you the time and space to work out how to be an artist, how to make Art and how to critique your own work and that of your peers. It also allows you to study alongside like-minded people working in a variety of different ways. Its not easy, its not a joke, we are expected to do nine-to-five days, produce a massive body of work and at the end of the four years put on a show of professional standard.

To many people, the subjects they study are the subjects they study which, like a job, are put on hold at the end of the day. Artists are different, the subject is so personal to us that we are constantly thinking, recording, and critiquing, it is not a job, it is our lives, how we deal with things.

Also Art School is not an easy ride, it can be infuriating and at times soul destroying. If you dont do the work, you get a hard time, even when you do the hard time we have crits where your work can be slated picked apart and you can be left totally flattened, I know its happened to me many times. The real world for an artist is a difficult one as well, and we are taught that from the beginning. We know its hard we know its a struggle but there are still plenty of us willing to go on and try and make a living from it.

I just find it contrived that people are still having a go at art students. We study fine art for a purpose and too right it should be subsidised, simply because you cant understand it does not give anyone the right to start throwing the "TAX PAYERS MONEY? FOR "ART"?" banners across the rooftops. Art is as valid as every other subject, some people may not see it as such, but if there was no subsidised arts subjects we probably wouldnt see the films we do now, listen to the music we do and the world would be a rather drab place.

It is possible to be an artist without going to Art School, and many successfull artists didnt get a very good degree, but Art Schools provide the basis for people to blossom in critical thinking, and creative expression. If art was so redundant why do people still buy works, why do local authorities commission public artists to make work to brighten up public spaces.

The "Art Degree is not worth the paper it is written on" is something else indeed, it is a subject that cannot be fairly graded, the grading is purelly subjective therefor you might do really well at assessments at art school but be shit as an artist in the real world, and vice versa.

Basically that last paragraph is the only relevant part to the debate, but the rest backs up that studying Art and the level of degree you get at the end of it are purelly different kettles of fish entirelly.[/quote']

Get in! I've got your stool, bucket and towel! Round 2! Ding...

I had a blast at art school... I had nightmare of a time at art school... I found out too much about myself at art school, good and bad... I run a bar for two years because of art school, and the rest... and now in a job that is directly related to both being an artist, musician and having run said business... A job that is there to assist those that follow their creative juices so that they can make themsleves more juicified...

www.culturalenterpriseoffice.co.uk

For those that create music to talk negatively about other creatives is a little odd. There are those that waste time by going to uni because they make a decision not to apply themselves during and therefore after. Thier loss! No one elses. Suck it up folks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn right. It isn't just odd' date=' personally I think it calls into question the motivations driving such people to perform music and be in bands.[/quote']

Lets not go there though. Everyone has reason for loving doing what they do, if they have infact got the gumption to love what they do... Making judgements is where the problems start and continue.

Jim (one bottle of wine in)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how this thread has become positive.

It's kind of inspiring in a way!

It will probably change again, like a swirling wind and end up being locked.

I have visited some cultureless countries in my little trips around the world. Without art you have lifeless cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting stuff guys, keep it coming. also, bear in mind that it's not just degrees in art but arts degrees in general, i.e. things which come under the arts faculty in universities. it's an interesting and amusing topic because i'm doing the debate in my role as vice-president (education) under which i look out for and support all students at the university of glasgow, and i have to stand up and say that the arts faculty (which is one of the biggest at the university) is a waste of time!

any more stuff to add?

/x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the requirments for this discussion are... But...

Anyone doing an 'arts' degree and doing it because they have a need to do it is worth every bit of paper afforded them. How they use, manipulate, consider, diversify from, contort, expand upon that bit of 'paper' is up to them. Its the folks that are involved that give any degree a worth, not the degree itself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a huge ramble to moan about why i cant take my creative arts qualifications any further in scotland...but it sickens me talking about it...all i have to say is scotland is terrible at taking film/tv/sound production seriously...truly a shame....

Anyway...the only people who can truly tell you if an arts degree is worth the paper its written on are people with said degree....im sure like any degree there are arguments for and against how useful they are....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's another way to look at arts degrees that nobody has spoken about yet (this is a majorly condensed version as the forum keeps logging me out when I try to type this)...

Employers agree that any new employee (graduate or not) doesn't have the ability to come into the workplace and carry out their job in the manner of someone experienced in the same profession. This demonstrates the pointlessness of vocational training at degree level (maybe apart from something like medicine or law, where there's a hell of a lot of work to cover before you're allowed to actually practice). If universities are wasting time with vocationally based degrees then what purpose do they serve? The only answer is to filter students capable of attaining a certain level of achievement from those not (a degree shows that a graduate is capable of working to a certain level).

So what does the university teach students under these circumstances? I would suggest as broad an education as possible would be the best way to go forward (why specialise when nobody requires it). Arts degrees by far and away contain the most broad ranging array of subjects available to any prospective student. In this, it can actually be seen that arts degree courses are far more useful than the multitude of vocational degree courses available (for example, contrast the amount of music students in this country compared to the amount of available jobs in the music industry). The lack of jobs in this country extends to the initial statement with regards to arts degrees. Is it the fault of the university or even the graduate (as some of the slower-witted amongst us have claimed) that the government is doing its best to destroy the job market? If we look at an this from an international perspective, arts graduates can easily find work abroad. The problem is simply that most people don't want to leave (again, this is no fault of the arts degree). If, after all this, you still want to claim that an arts degree isn't worth the paper it was written on, blame the government.

From my description of higher education, you can see I'm looking at a classical model. Most universities don't approach education like this nowadays. Where has this got us? Unless you're in the government and are desperate for every teenager in the universe to go to uni in order to keep the unemployment figures down, there have been no benefits to the shift from academia to vocational training.

Incidentally Lester, you keep saying that people who fail their course should have to pay back money. They already do. And it's so wonderful to see these people, whose only mistake was to pick the wrong course, being stuck in a job which doesn't befit their intelligence, no degree, no career prospects and a debt to rival a gambling addict realising that for them, this is it and all because nobody exaplained to them that psychology was actually all statistics or that most of their computer programming course was theory and essays. What a model for society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So what does the university teach students under these circumstances? I would suggest as broad an education as possible would be the best way to go forward (why specialise when nobody requires it). "

This assumes universities are there to prepare people for employment which by and large they are not. This has derived from the fact that for many years a Uni education assisted you in getting a good job. But it wasn't the reason for it. Universities are places where you go to learn, the expectatioon is no greater. Governments teachers and parents have a belief they are a kind of pre-employment training which for medicine engineering and so on they are but they are also there to maintain the culture and academia of the world and allow individuals to learn what they wish to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...