I didn't go to art school to pursue a career in art. The art school I went to basically said, "don't" - it's a lottery anyways. The people who can make a living as an artist are a few dozen worldwide.
I went to art school to think laterally and critically. I went to have my own ideas of what creativity is exhaustively challenged.
You can also go to art school to make those social connections to the larger art world - the art world is nothing but a huge web of social ties. I found that part of it pretty dark and disgusting, really. I just wasn't willing to stab so many people in the back to get ahead.
My curriculum was not centered around skills and technique - you were to learn that yourself. It was centered around your ideas - get your ideas out of your head and onto a stage basically. The school and my program were influenced by the Black Mountain school in N. Carolina where individuals like B. Fuller, Merce Cunningham, and John Cage taught. Interdisciplinary. It was all a living experiment, and all my higher level courses had, "Experimental" in their name.
I don't regret one second of art school. You get out what you get in. I still would never, ever pursue a career as an artist. I've done lots of creatively amazing projects, but it wasn't for the money - this country I live in (USA) at least really doesn't find monetary value in the arts.
I think your advice sounds great for people living in a Star Trek utopia where people only work to better themselves.
However in our present time, how many people can seriously consider going to college without careful thought to how it will relate to their career?
I'd love to go to art school but not be an artist. While I'm at it, I'd also like to earn graduate degrees in history, literature, and philosophy (might help my lateral thinking).
Why would such an education have a negative impact on your career? It teaches communication, makes sure you know how to get your ideas out into a consumable format, and teaches critical thinking. All of these skills will be valuable in just about any career.
And that is exactly why I think higher education is a good idea. Admittedly, paying for it is tougher now than when I was in school... but the leap from "It is too expensive" to "It is not a worthwhile education" is not quite correct.
When I was in school, the general attitude was that any bachelor's degree will help any career. A Masters degree will only help a career in that specific field, and a PhD will only help you in academia. I think this is still accurate, but the cost of tuition has masked the underlying value of the education.
Depends on your perspective. If you had infinite money, everything would effectively be free no matter how much it costed, and "value" to you wouldn't be a function of cost at all, but rather one of factors like time and convenience.
No one has infinite money, but the more money you have, the less the cost of something matters, and in exchange the other factors matter more.
For a relevant example, I think that a liberal arts degree is a wonderful thing. The experience itself is hugely positive. If you're not already financially secure, however, I think that spending $200,000 on a liberal arts degree is a bad idea. The return on investment is low compared to some other things you could spend $200k. It is, indeed, a "ripoff." If you're already very wealthy, the equation changes. $200k has less value to you, so the education itself is relatively more valuable in exchange. If you're wealthy enough, the economic benefits may become completely irrelevant, which makes the liberal arts education an extremely efficient use of your resources because of the other benefits it provides that you'd struggle to obtain any other way.
A $200k liberal arts education may only provide minor benefits over a $50k one, so you could say it's "not worth" 4x the cost. A scam, practically. But if you're wealthy enough, the $150k may not matter as much as the minor benefits do.
Basically, "worth" is not some intrinsic property of an object, but instead entirely dependent on your frame of reference.
> Why would such an education have a negative impact on your career?
You've missed the point.
It's not a problem of comparing "with education" Vs "without education".
It's a problem of comparing "with a employable degree that ensures a safe career path" Vs "with an useless and unemployable degree that may even hinder your job prospects".
"It teaches communication, makes sure you know how to get your ideas out into a consumable format, and teaches critical thinking."
I honestly don't know if college teaches critical thinking.
And honestly-- Im tired of college grads acting like they learned how to think in college.
I remember so many courses in college that had critical thinking in the college course outline, and I didn't learn anything besides common sense on that worthless busywork.
Let's spill the beans on college.
If you didn't pursue a STEM degree, in fifteen to twenty years; get back to me on exactly what you remember, or how college made you a Critical thinker, who could communicate like like Donald, or Hillary. They do it so well, and both went to great schools.
For all those that didn't go to college, there are a few essential courses:
1. A good Psychology course. One that emphasizeses The Placebo Effect, the Scientific Method, statistics, and what differentiates a good study, from a bad study.
2. Take a statistics course. (Again, if you get the right Psychology Instructor--you might be able to skip statistics. Basically--you just want to differentiate the b.s. that's thrown at us daily. If you don't ever learn it, you're in good company. There's many doctors who are fooled into believing something works, with horrid statistics.
3. Take Philosophy 101, and try your best to master the material. You will forget 95% of it.
4. Take English 101. If the teacher doesn't seem to care, take another English course. Learn how to write an essay, and research paper. Learn the basics. Topic sentences, funneling, etc., and then write terribly, like I'm doing now.
5. Learn mathematics through trigonometry.
6. Take a year of Physics.
7. Take a auto repair course at the local community college. I took a few classes, and those courses saved me thousands over the years. They might be the best college courses I took?
I probally forgot some important course. People can add to this, or take away.
My point is stop telling people they need college to think critically.
There was a lot of busy work. A lot of drinking. A lot of sex. And yes, some courses that prepared us for life--I guess?
The important stuff, like using your rich friends to get ahead was never taught. You know networking? Along with don't blow a mental gasket over the b.s you'll have to deal with getting a higher degree was skipped. Oh, yea, and don't "knock up" the first girl you date in freshman chemistry.
If I understand it correctly, the US is actually the perfect system to go to an art school and still make a career in a traditional field: You can still go to law school or HBS.
Many people suffer from "premature optimization", trying to do business-related stuff because they see McKinsey in their future. I've met quite a few people from those global consultancies, and they actively encourage people to study theology or modern french literature.
And don't get me started on parents asking for their children's middle schools to "focus on accounting, not these useless languages"...
My guess is that they want French Literature and theology degrees from Stanford/Ivy/etc schools. If you go to Chico State you're much better off with a CS or accounting degree. I can't imagine the average state school liberal arts degree holder has a viable white collar career field with just that degree.
Sorta like its better to have a Stanford law degree and have had mediocre grades, than it is to have graduated at the top of your class from Santa Clara.
Your lack of imagination doesn't match up with reality.
Over my long career I have seen that the overarching large corporations have a glass ceiling that can only be broken through by having at least a Bachelor's degree no matter the degree.
Your argument says nothing about a university's reputation and its effect on salaries, so its completely irrelevant to ZanyProgrammer's point. I wouldn't be surprised if an english major from Stanford out-earns an engineer from Chico, because there's lots of companies who only hire "the best" (aka people from top universities).
Yeah, everyone knows that a bachelor's is the minimal requirement. But I've never seen or heard of a situation of someone being denied promotion because of the lack of a degree. (Maybe in the government?) OTOH, I've worked with a lot of business people who can't even type a coherent email, much less do anything which isn't completely reactionary. I'd say the degree is mostly incidental and not the root cause.
> Yeah, everyone knows that a bachelor's is the minimal requirement. But I've never seen or heard of a situation of someone being denied promotion because of the lack of a degree. (Maybe in the government?)
try government contractors. Aerospace, in particular, loves to teach minimal education/salary employees skilled engineering trades on-the-job and then slap the title 'engineering intern' or 'junior engineer' onto them, a small increase in pay, and a huge increase in responsibility.
'Junior engineer' is typically what employees who are going to school for an applicable field get thrown into until graduation, at which point they become full fledged engineers -- but the title also serves as a ceiling for those who have chosen to not pursue further education.
I don't know if it is fair to equate a ceiling in pay to a denial in promotion, but they sure seem similar from a practical perspective.
STEM fields and medicine and law are different. Basically, unless you've passed the hard tests (e.g. calculus) you are a lab assistant, a tech, not a person who can be in charge of anything.
In most kinds of middle management, your degree doesn't matter at all, but they want you to have a degree. Any four year degree from an accredited college.
I knew a doctor who did admissions at a well-regarded med school. They said the best applications didn't come from the kids who studied bio or chem as an undergrad because they figured a field related to medicine would make them competitive but from those who studied what they found interesting (including bio or chem). These applicants not only had better grades on average, but they tended to have much more interesting applications because they really dug into something because they loved it, not as a means to an end.
I'm currently at an infectious disease medical conference. Several of the major keynotes, given by immensely successful and influential doctors, contain defenses of, or references to, a classic liberal arts education.
> I've met quite a few people from those global consultancies, and they actively encourage people to study theology or modern french literature.
They encourage it because building personal relationships and projecting a positive (and impressive) personal image are important business assets.
Between a guy who is 100% technical and have no personality and a guy who is 80% technical but is also able to hold an intelligent conversation in french about how modern literature reflects theological influences, the latter will be better suited to conduct business.
There's a reason why engineers stay in the backrooms while the polished business-minded yuppie is in charge of business.
I went to art school the same year Netscape launched. It was easy to see the potential for good design & creative - that was both created & presented digitally.
At the time, my school didn't have a program for this, I had to shoe-horn it into the existing design program. Nor was there, at the time, a well understood title in the professional world for my skills & approach & experience. At any given time through my early career was a: 'visual web designer', 'information architect', 'cognitive designer', 'user experience consultant', 'usability expert', 'full-stack web developer'.
So, yea, go to art school as it just might show you what doesn't yet exist and how to make a career there.
I'll make an argument that going to school for art will closely relate to many careers.
Art school trains students to 1) put new things into the world and take intellectual responsibility for them, 2) learn an arbitrary and mostly-historical set of techniques that nonetheless take dedication to master, and 3) engage deeply with what other disciplines shrug off as "human factors."
In my eventual career developing software, those things have come in handy. Perhaps more importantly, an art education has made me see software development as more than just problem solving or engineering. I may never be Michaelangelo or Kara Walker, but I still like trying to master one tiny corner of the universe and make things that other people will want in their lives.
I'm also not advocating spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a BFA, but I won't advocate against it either. To me it makes about as much sense as buying a $250k car or stereo.
> I think your advice sounds great for people living in a Star Trek utopia where people only work to better themselves.
Or, you know, any country where you can study without ending up burdened with crippling student debt. There's a few of them; I went to art school in one.
4 years of pre-labour market years, yes. Instead, you gain perspective, connections and learn a thing or more about critical thinking and communication.
I say hogwash to these 'don't go to art school' opinions. Come to Europe, we have free education. Learn what you want, and be willing to pick up new things as you go along.
Many of our countries have free education for students coming from other EU member states, however there's usually a different set of fees. Take the current fees for the university and course I did: https://www.hw.ac.uk/undergraduate/computer-science.htm
> gain perspective, connections and learn a thing or more about critical thinking and communication.
There is literally not a single major that does not value or grant these things, to a greater or lesser degree. I have no comprehension of why people list these factors as to why "degree X of no obvious immediate value" has value. I always assume such conversations are about marginal value, insofar as any higher education will confer the above.
Connections in a world you won't work in and four years of studies in a maybe free educations system yes but where you will have to pay rent without having an income.
The thing with a degree - at least in the US - is that it often doesn't matter so much what your degree is in, but that you have one. It opens some doors - even if they aren't well paid doors. It really doesn't matter so much so long as you don't hate your life - in the end, it is just a job. All the knowlege, literature, philosophy and art keeps the rest of life better.
Besides. Your view is one of maturity. I would be more prudent now -in my late 30's - but when I was 16, 18, and 22? I just wanted to go to learn stuff. Neat stuff. I wanted art school because I wanted to learn to do neat stuff. I've never really cared about a career, but that's worked out to be a bonus for me.
I have never went to the art school, learned art(painting, computer graphics, animation) myself, and then have worked as a 3D artist for several years.
It is definitely not a lottery, but a matter of competence. There's plenty of jobs available for digital artists, and when vr comes around there will only be more.
I agree with the author of the article though, art schools have very little practical value. When it comes to painting, 3D graphics, and animation, you can learn everything online, for free. Or for a few thousand $, if you're not willing to use torrents.
> There's plenty of jobs available for digital artists
Jobs in the 3D/VFX business:
* Are contract only (edit: I should say.. the OPEN jobs are)
* Require moving between continents for projects.
* Require 80-100 hour weeks when employed (but with overtime pay!)
* "Funemployment" for 3-18 month stretches
Follow @DrScottRoss and @VFXSoldier if you want to read up more on that business's total collapse in the US.
For 3D work like games and such, art pipelines are already scaled up in Poland, Ukraine, China, India, and more. There hasn't been significant growth for 3D art jobs in the US for a long time (since at least 2008).
> when vr comes around there will only be more
Why would 3D jobs come back into the US for VR? The same people doing game art overseas can do that work.
Yeah, this is discussed in Catmull's book Creativity Inc.. Pixar has never had contracts. When Pixar's leadership took the reins at Walt Disney Animation in 2007, they eliminated contracts there too.
Some studios, Electronic Arts notably, start new graduates as hourly with overtime for their first two years. At least in EA's case this was done in part as a response to the "EA Spouse" episode (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Hoffman#.22EA_Spouse.22_b...). Paying overtime acts as a financial incentive, beyond the broader philosophical changes to improve work-life balance, to better plan and scope projects.
I'd imagine that the useful things art school could give you would be art history, aesthetics, color theory, and criticism. Being proficient in graphics doesn't mean you are an artist. Commercial work is certainly far removed from the art world.
> Being proficient in graphics doesn't mean you are an artist.
Really? What is required for "being an artist" other than, you know, making art and being good at it? We could forever argue about what things qualify one as artist, but I believe that having the word "artist" in your job title is one of them.
> I'd imagine that the useful things art school could give you would be art history, aesthetics, color theory, and criticism.
Looks like we also disagree on the meaning of the world "useful" =)
Seriously though, if you're interested in art history you can definitely learn it over the internet. Color theory is just one of the many skills you pick up as you lean to paint, and there's plenty of courses on that. "Aesthetics" is a pretty vague term, I think it is sort of like "taste" - it is just something you develop as you get good at what you do.
And when it comes to criticism - you can just use your own judgement or get a lot of helpful feedback on forums. Online classes like Animation Mentor offer feedback and critique of incredible quality, from people who have exerience working in companes like Pixar/DreamWorks/etc.
> Commercial work is certainly far removed from the art world.
I think that a lot of of the best art is now being developed as a part of the "commercial" projects - animated cartoons, movies, games.
I was not arguing that you can't self teach, simply that art school is far, far, far more useful if you realize their value is not in technical instruction.
"Aesthetics" is a precise term.
Yes, there are places on the internet you can find critisism. I can't speak to the quality or if there is anyone at Pixar who says interesting things about art. I like their products, but I can't say I've ever seen a dialectic between Pixar and the critical community. Certainly, I can't say I would look for interesting art in people looking to sell it—entertainment, yes, but the most delightful reactions will always be surprises, not purchases. This last point may be the crucial division between our world views. If you want to make money, and if you want to make art, choose—you'll always be in conflict with the people with money and what you want to express.
This is not a matter of different "world views" as you call it.
The distinction you draw between paid artists and "the critical community" simply does not exist.
How many historically great artists, masters, geniuses, would you like to be named here - all who have been paid, or had patronage, or whatever, before you'll admit you're criteria is utterly deficient without depriving yourself the benefit of some of man's greatest achievements?
It's ironic, how you proclaim you don't care to consider whether you are condescending, that this lack of connection to humanity is probably related to the artificial boundary your mind has created to encircle what you call real art.
I don't believe I used the term "real art" and if you re-read my comment you'll find I have a more nuanced view of commercial/non-commercial art. Pixar isn't tackling anything controversial because they want to get paid; this does not mean they don't produce art, but rather that there are many pieces of art worth making they will not touch. This goes for any commercial entity, and Pixar is certainly producing more work that is interesting in itself than any organization of which I can think.
Why am I suddenly getting flashbacks to endless threads on the Deviantart forums where mediocre painters rail on about how digital art is not REAL ART because you have UNDO and DEADLINES and you're working for the MAN half the time and getting PAID REGULARLY instead of putting your RAW SOUL on the canvas and starving in a GARRET like VAN GOGH for the PURITY of your ART!!!!!
(My summation of this viewpoint may be showing a little bit of bias due to the fact that I am a cyborg artist who works in the soulless medium of Illustrator.)
The best definition of 'art' that I've heard is "Does someone call it 'art'? Then it's art". Every other definition I've seen put forward has its exceptions. Using this definition, you can't separate out 'real' art.
My own personal working definition of art is "does it make me think or feel something other than questioning the skill of the creator?". This sets a pretty low bar, but still cuts out those things like the 'artists' who just nail up a sheet of plain paper and call it 'untitled'... yes, very funny, moving on.
I did not intend to turn this into a discussion on real art—there's certainly plenty of people who produce amazing work without training—but you're fooling yourself if you think art school has no value to artists. There is so much more to appreciate about what you already love if you know what to look for; there are so many ways to push yourself you might not consider without other experienced people.
"Artist" can be misleading when it is used as part of a job title—not all people with those titles do something that you, personally, might identify as art.
I've spent time in art school, both gallery-oriented programs and commercial programs. Neither was without value. But I strongly agree with the thesis of the original article that art school is not worth the immense debt you'll have to take on in today's America; I'm old enough that things like "grants" weren't impossible to get when my family was paying for college. And college hadn't gone through the huge inflation it has in recent decades.
It's a legitimate idea hard to express without sounding condescending. Artists get annoyed by "I never needed to go to art school because I taught myself photoshop" as much as others are annoyed by "oh, you're a computer scientist? Can you fix my windows?"
Matt, I understand what you're saying - but that wasn't his main point. I object to the summary dismissal of anyone who has a job as unable to be a legitimate artist.
I don't think there is a definition! But if you think you are an artist, you should push for self-expression. If someone else is dictating your craft, you're the tool, not the artist. I also have full faith that you can make art anywhere, and you don't need an education for it. But knowing the technical craft does not mean you are doing anything aesthetically interesting, whether conceptually, visually, etc etc.
I mostly point this out because "Graphic Artist" is a term sort of like "Software Engineer"—the artist/engineer label implies a lot culturally about the job (and people occupying it) that may or may not be true. Subway may call their people "sandwich artists", but I'll leave evaluation of THAT art up to you.
I respectfully disagree - and honestly get tired of folks expecting that. There are a lot of times I just thought it was neat looking or what I thought would be nifty there. And I'm sitting here doing surrealist and somewhat abstract stuff.
Besides, self-expression is never quite enough. If you watch people going through an art museum, you find little changes in the way they look at pictures. Folks will linger at different points - whatever brings up feelings in them, hits their beauty point, and so on. And it is really neat when you see that with your own art.
Being able to do that in other people is one of those things that differentiates good art from other art. It is kind of like being a good cook or chef.
Hmm, you've left me with a lot to think about. There's certainly value to "nifty" work, but I think that value can almost always be leveraged in self expression. Hey, even pointing out nifty things is self expression.
I am a visual effects animator at one of the major VFX studios, and did not go to art school so I am one of these self-taught graphic artists. And I totally agree with what you're saying here. I don't consider what I do to be art. It is highly-skilled craft with a lot of specialized technique. But I am not personally creating meaning in any way. The filmmakers and directors who bring us projects might be artists, but I am just a cog in a large machine which produces their vision.
I also work with many people who did go to art school and I can say that in general they have a better understanding of fundamentals like color theory and composition than those who did not. Also often a better approach to tackling creative problems. I frequently find myself wishing I'd hard those years of formal instruction.. It would make some things a lot easier.
"If someone else is dictating your craft"---I see what you're at, but the line isn't that clear. I'm an actor, and I have to follow the script and directions to convey their ideas. In that sense I might be a tool, or instrument, of a director, and I'm happy to be a good tool to serve great storytelling, but there is (and should be) room where I contribute artistically, bringing something that is unique of me into the work.
I was in 3DGC productions as well. A 3D artist can be just a worker to materialize director's vision precisely as he's told, but they can also contribute the creative process to carry out the greater work.
> If someone else is dictating your craft, you're the tool, not the artist.
I don't get this. When you are commissioned to do work, it is highly unlikely that you are being micromanaged in the technical details. "No. Don't draw this shape. Yes, make that shade lighter."
That's ridiculous. Artist are paid to do their craft.
If that is not your point, then are saying that you can't express yourself in the how you actually do your craft?
It is also interesting to think that working for someone else can be thought of as just another limitation to work around like what medium to use, what palette to use, etc.
The digital artists at big studios that he's talking about are micromanaged precisely like this. I think concept artists maybe have more freedom for creativity, but the majority of artists in animation and film graphics are constantly being told to make shades lighter and change shapes arbitrarily. A lot of the job is learning how to be flexible to appease those who are in charge.
I think if you go around saying "you should" to artists, then "you should" also provide a link to your portfolio so they can make an informed decision on what value they choose to place on such advice.
> If someone else is dictating your craft, you're the tool, not the artist
Not quite. According to this view, prominent artists from the Renaissance were just tools. Patronage made possible some of the best pieces in art history. In fact artists didn't even get to pick their subjects until relatively recently.
The line between commercial (commissioned), craft and artistic endeavour (self-expression) are often blurred.
And yes, art is escaping definition, and it should.
I think a better analogy are all the assistants and apprentices that worked in the larger Renaissance studios. They produced work in the style of the masters, or duplicated their works, but they weren't doing original work, and are mostly forgotten today. Are they doing art? Or are they just craftsmen?
I dint think it's about patronage.. most professional artists today have some form of patronage. I think it's a distinction between how much freedom that patronage gives you to do what you want vs realize someone else's vision.
You are using unclear terms, but you are getting to some of the confusion on this thread.
Most art schools offer concentrations in areas that could allow you to pay back the debt you incur -- industrial design, film/animation, graphic design. But you have to be very lucky, or move laterally, to pay back those debts if you concentrate in painting, ceramics, or glass (all offered at RISD).
And, especially as you go from the BFA to the MFA, there is an increasing split between these two tracks. Different people on this thread are talking about different things.
My wife has a BFA and an MFA in sculpture from very well regarded schools. One of her classmates moved laterally and is now very high in the creative apparatus at Facebook, a couple are doing well with gallery sales, museum shows, and commissions, a few others teach (especially the ones with strong technical skills).
But, it's a hard path. Probably half her class pays the bills with earnings that don't use their skills. They almost all still make art.
I lecture webdesign at a prestigious art school in Sweden. I've done this for the last 5 years. One thing I've noticed is that mentioning anything regarding money or how to earn money(make a living) using the skills/knowledge you've aquired is strictly taboo and frowned upon (some of the students and most faculty. I've even been told not to talk about such things in my lectures. Utterly bizarre
I graduated an art school in France. You don't have to pay for that, the fees are extremely low (you can pay it by working 3h a week as a waiter). So the problem is surely elsewhere than around the financial problem.
The social part is the trickier one. The art school gives you access to a wonderful networking playground, and you discover very quickly that attending vernissages and parties are mostly as importing as "working" on your art.
If you come from a rich family, it will help, not because you will be able to pay the school fees, but because you will be able to play with the social codes for this. Check Pierre Bourdieu for more about this and the social construction around "distinction" and "reproduction".
Even with all this you are still not sure of anything. Most of the artists didn't even attend an art school.
I went to a private art school, but dropped out after a semester. I agree with you that there's a lot to be learned there: if you can handle a tough critique after you've sweated over a piece for a few weeks, public speaking feels like a breeze. And yes, you get out what you put in--like school and life in general.
Perhaps it's because your school was different from mine, but I found art school to be unproductive for a good number of my peers who graduated. Very few are going to flat out admit "yeah, that was a bad decision," but I think that money and time could've been better spent elsewhere and put them on a more comfortable path (but artists are supposed to suffer..). Art school in America is a luxury good, but many would-be art students fail to accept that.
You said it right - art school is a luxury. Most of the comments FOR art school focus on the non-monetary benefits of going to art school which some people - who I assume are the main target of the article - simply don't have the luxury to pursue. For those that attend art school with the hope that it will improve future compensation / job opportunities, the article is spot on.
Personally art school sounds like a great resource but unfortunately the reality is that I'm probably going to spend most of my life barely getting by as it is. I guess that's the problem with capitalism that people seem to forget about sometimes: you're going to have people (a whole bunch) at the very bottom of the pyramid / ladder / whatever who will never be able to rise above basic sustenance.
The people who make a living as a name artist with "important" gallery exposure probably number a few hundred in the West.
There are more in China and Russia, both of which have big art scenes, and plenty of very rich people willing to splash the cash on prestige canvases.
The number of people making a living as visual artists is somewhere between a hundred and a thousand times that. There are a lot of people selling decorative, mass-appeal art, with varying levels of skill, but no serious pretensions to cultural significance.
Earnings follow the usual power law. Most get by, some are more comfortable, a handful do very well indeed.
I don't think any of them would seriously consider taking on $400k of debt.
I think we're getting to the point where universities are basically just running scams in these creative areas.
You'll get some value from a degree program, especially on the networking side. But - as OP says - it's just not worth saddling yourself with a lifetime of debt to pay for that access.
This kind of education used to be free/cheap, and that worked better for everyone - except the loan sharks.
My wife went back to complete a graphic design degree as a career change / work break. The opportunity cost of 4 years of not working is obviously huge, but the absolute cost was about 10k euro in Ireland, and that is on the high side for Europe as a whole I think.
Sure, but if you're interested in JUST painting, your professors would be well advised to give you the above advice. You don't learn to paint to feed yourself.
> You can also go to art school to make those social connections to the larger art world - the art world is nothing but a huge web of social ties. I found that part of it pretty dark and disgusting, really. I just wasn't willing to stab so many people in the back to get ahead.
This is true of every profession. Politics is a part of human life. Academia is absolutely rife with this, business obviously; and you can argue that engineering and certain other professions are 'more' merit driven, but in the end this is only true at the bottom of the pile. Once you hit the threshold where you have sufficiently competitive domain knowledge, then the value of your position is determined by a balance of factors which begin to have more and more equal weight:
Can you get along with anyone? Do you have a strong network which can help drive business? Can you sometimes make hard decisions? Can you formulate a larger view of the landscape?
Of course these things count to a varying degree at all stages of a career, but there is either no such thing as a 'pure' meritocracy - because this is a fundamentally one-dimensional, naive view of the world; or it is a meritocracy by definition, and 'merit' is measure of outcomes.
You might not regret one second but did you pay every dollar? If you can afford it an education like this might seem worth the money but for most an education must have a good return on the investment or you're broke for life. Lateral and critical thinking are great but you still have to find a way to put food on the table.
You can spend 100℅ off you time to think critically at art school. So some people will really manage to become some good thinkers or critics.
But it is not a scientific field. Even scientists (sociology for what I know) working on these fields are attacked for the lack of scientific methodology.
> The people who can make a living as an artist are a few dozen worldwide
That's really hyperbolic and inaccurate.
There are full-time artists in my family. They personally know dozens of artists who make a living doing it, and that's only a tiny segment of the art world.
The art world isn't enormous, but its certainly more than 10^-8 of the world's population, as you claim.
That sounds great and all, but I wonder if there were alternative ways of learning to "think laterally and critcally and have your ideas of creativity exhaustively challenged" without going into massive debt and dedicating several years of your life to an institution of higher learning. I'm certain there must be less costly and less time consuming way of obtaining these skills. In fact higher education would seem to me to be the least efficient means of obtaining these skills.
Seems like you got the right things out of it. Do you mind my asking how much it cost? The article cites RISD at 245K. That seems crazy. But 80K may not be too awful.
I went to art school and dropped out. In high school I had immense pressure from my guidance counselors to go to art school, specifically a private one. What I was told was that if I didn't go to college and get a degree I would be working fast food the rest of my life. Being a dumb 17 year old who had no concept of debt, I listened, I gave into their scare tactics and went.
After my first year, I felt like I was wasting my time. Gen eds were at the level of what I learned in 8th grade and art class grading was completely opinionated and based on what type of art the teacher liked. I hated it and wanted to drop out. But fear of failure and a realization of what debt really was kept me locked into going to college.
I scraped by my second year while becoming more and more jaded. I felt lied to and swindled out of my money and future. I ended up finally dropping out when the realization that I really was wasting my time took over.
I spent a lot of time with computers on my own and taught myself how systems work for a few years while I worked multiple dead end jobs to scrape by and attempt to pay off my debt. Eventually I managed to land myself a jr sysadmin at a company which saved me from drowning. Now I work as a full fledged infrastructure engineer making a very satisfying amount of money and working on an extremely interesting set of problems. I'm actually happy now.
Art school hurt me horribly. I had to dig myself out of a massive hole with sheer willpower and determination alone.
My father went to Art School in India, and despite being an incredibly gifted documentary photographer -- he even won a Magnum Photos Prize in India for his works on the Indo-Pak War in 72--, he bared scraped by. Eventually he ended up working at night to take the GRE, TOEFL Exams and came to America to get his Bachelors in Engineering.
Right from childhood (I was born in America), he groomed me to be an Engineer also, despite seeing a talent in me also for art (fine arts) and sports (basketball). I was angry (at him) as a child, but now, I am very grateful.
What lot of these articles also fail to mention, is that a "Career in Art" is mostly scrapping by for 90%+ of the graduates. We only see the top 10% or so and think it's great money, fame etc etc. They also fail to mention that during economic downturns (think recession every 8 to 10 years) the 1st thing that consumers will cut back on, is in the art, luxury area. So even very successful painters, artists will see drastically reduced income during these times.
We're gonna need a culture shift away from "higher education" being the only option for middle class kids. Go to any middle/upper middle class suburb and tell parents their kid doesn't need to go to college and you'll get laughed at.
The military is also a non-profit institution, yet it's the most expensive thing we pay for in the US. Just because the institution itself is non-profit doesn't mean there aren't tons of entities making a killing off of growing the beast.
A business need not be corporate-profitable to pay its management lavishly. The university may not have shareholders or a dividend but that just means all the money it makes has to go somewhere, and that is often inflated salaries for the highest echelons of the school.
What about the fact that most of the best-known schools have basically become massive hedge funds with nices educational institutions attached to them to keep the non-profit scam in play?
Outside of Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, and maybe ETH Zurich I would not consider European education as viewed favorably by employers in the US. I'd say it would typically be equivalent to an unknown state school at best, especially for something like CS where the European equivalent is frequently "informatics".
I'm not sure whether the average US university is better or worse than the average European university, but I can say that once you're not talking about the top few schools (Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, whatever) the university itself matters little to employers unless they went there or it's infamous for some reason. So the University of France Calais may be amazing, but it probably won't be viewed as significantly different than Penn State by your average employer.
Nothing would make one think so. I believe what Kephael is saying is that most European universities are unknown quantities to American employers. So said employers will tend to equate them with known quantities - the many American state schools of no particular distinction.
This has nothing to do with the quality of the schools, the education they offer, or the skills of their graduates. It has everything to do with the schools being unknown.
That's not really the problem here. The problem here, specifically, is that art school is extremely expensive (much more so than other schools, which are more expensive than they used to be, but not nearly this bad), and an art degree has no earning power.
What would you suggest to an average (not smart but not stupid either) middle-class high schooler to do after finishing high school? Their best bet at a good life and career is by finishing their higher education IMO. This is true for Europe at least, I can't speak for the US. But I imagine that it would be true for the US as well.
Thanks for the article, I graduated from Art Center College of Design in Pasadena and have seen similar issues with skyrocketing tuition costs [1]. In addition, I have also noticed an equally alarming decrease in the average age of the student body going from late 20’s to the now common immediate post high school age being the norm.
I feel like that is particularly troubling as younger students that may not know if they want to be in the field over the long term end up being saddled with crippling $200,000+ debt.
You also listed some excellent resources in gaining skills for creative trade work but, to be honest, I don’t know if I agree that these can act as a complete replacement particularly in entertainment design, industrial design, interactive art or even UI/UX due to the scope of knowledge needed to be competent in these fields.
I personally think there is starting to be an uptick in doing only part of a program where students will only do two years of a four-year degree to get the networking and skill benefits with less debt. This is a pretty bitter pill to swallow though as you end could easily end up paying $100,000+ for no degree...
In any case, I would be really interested in hearing more of your thoughts on trade specific strategies for creative education.
Another thing to add to your $10k education list, look at all the art classes in community colleges around the big expensive private art schools.
I got my BFA from a pricy private art school in LA. We were paying about $1250 a credit. The same teachers were also teaching at Santa Monica college for about $21 a credit. I was furious when I found out. I wish I would have known about that. So I suggest going to that prestigious school you want to go. Look up the classes and teachers, they might be teaching somewhere else for cheaper.
Likewise, if you're just interested in learning the material, check out alternatives at the big expensive art schools themselves. For example, RISD offers 2-year certificate programs for about $10k. They're composed of community education classes, but they're taught by RISD instructors in RISD classrooms, and as far as I can tell are equivalent to the corresponding courses taught during the day. The catch, of course, is that you don't have access to the full range of courses, and that you don't get to say "BFA" or "MFA" on your resume at the end -- although you can still say "RISD". :)
I'm hoping robots, ai and UBI will liberate the masses from material obsession, leading to increased appreciation of the arts as vocation and entertainment, reviving and democratising our institutions. I fear reality will be more aligned with Black Mirror type scenarios.
The entire world of profiting from education, and from predatory loans for education is locked into a desperate feedback loop that's killing us. Of course, the alternatives involve the kinds of "big government" that have been so ideologically loathsome to many from the 80's on.
Ironically back in the 80s it cost around $75/year for UC. I went to UC in 1990, say tuition go from $375/year to $20,000/year by 1995. The changes Bush and Clinton made in the 90s enabled this situation where schools on the one hand lost state subsidies and on the other hand you saw the radical financialization where it became the norm to suddenly be 22 years old and in 6 figures of debt.
Tuition at UTD skyrocketed when the Texas state legislature uncapped tuition in 2003. Before that, tuition at public universities was capped by state law, but afterwards, each university was allowed to set their own tuition. UTD became one of the most expensive public universities in the country starting in 2004.
What changes made by US Presidents could have such a drastic effect on part of California's government? Outside of funding of researchers, which I doubt went down much during Bush and Clinton, I thought the federal government had (and has) relatively minor influence over the University of California.
Yes, this tuition spike happened everywhere in the US due to the availability of student loans for everyone who had a pulse at effectively any asking price. All of the universities had absolutely no incentive to cap tuition increases because everyone could always pay.
"Big government" is responsible for the out of control costs. With government-guaranteed student loans, there is no requirement for the university or the bank to retain an reasonable cost profile.
The only loser if the student fails to repay their loan is the student him/herself, when it affects their credit negatively and they're unable to discharge it in bankruptcy.
Other than that, universities will get paid no matter what they charge, and banks will get the loan repaid whether you do it personally or not, so there's no reason for anyone to constrain costs to reality.
Outlaw student debt entirely and watch the system turn on its head. There's no reason it should be so expensive to learn how to be useful, especially with 12 years of state-funded primary schooling before university.
In France, art school are free. Wait... The costs are paid by the state! The costs for education that you mention are sick. It would cost Americans less to relocate to Europe and they could eat good cheese.
Food in America has gone through a revolution in the last 20 or so years. American beer used to be considered awful and now is considered the best, most innovative and most complex by many people around the world. Our wines used to be considered awful until the 1980's and now many of them are respected and globally accepted as great.
New American Cuisine and it's offsprings have eclipsed French cooking in many respects. Although it owes so much to French cooking to be fair.
Yes, university is disgustingly expensive here, however.
My experience is dating a bit, but in 2009 I spent 3 months crossing the US as a tourist. My experience with the food was that you could get crap for next to nothing, or really good food at a premium. There seemed to be no middle ground; 'normal' food at a 'normal' price.
My first interaction with American food was on landing in LA - on arriving at the place I was staying, I started making a sandwich with some "healthy (check mark) wholemeal bread". I put a slice in my mouth while I was making the sandwich (I was that hungry and couldn't wait), and it was like biting into a slice of cake, flavour-wise. There was so much sugar in this 'healthy wholemeal' slice...
After WW2 the USA figured out how to industrialize and process food. We took the model used to feed soldiers and converted it into something for everyday people in the home. The advertising to support this painted the kitchen as a bleak, difficult place where failure was imminent. Instead of being a place of joy and culture it was a disaster waiting to happen. The new alternative was to buy these processed foods as they were guaranteed to work and were convenient. In the 1950's it did in fact probably seem really innovative and novel.
This model was highly successful as it brought down prices, increased profits and liberated women from the kitchen. As more and more people didn't have the time to shop for good food and cook it this processed food industry got larger and larger until it became the dominant food culture in the country. Think of an America food store today and the entire middle of it is all processed foods in boxes, cans, refrigerated and any other form.
In the 1970's it became even simpler with the promise of "we'll cook it for you" and the fast food restaurant was born. These restaurants use the same processing techniques but also have the ability to have some industrial kitchen equipment to make the food taste less "TV Dinner" like.
The problem with all of this is these foods are not only filled with tons of chemicals and other agents but they're packed with salt and sugar. The foods also aren't prepared right.
To you point of bread: Bread was industrialized and processed. If you look at a loaf of bread and read the ingredients you'll see 25 or more things in it! They even were able to breed yeast which could make the bread rise faster which actually is bad as the gluten doesn't develop correctly this way. This isn't bread - it's like you described and it is awful. Using a sour dough culture and making real bread was replaced with this.
It's no wonder we have so many people who claim to have a gluten allergy today. This never happened before and it's because of the way the food made and what is in it. It's no wonder we have kids with type 2 diabetes. It's no wonder people have digestive and heart issues at a rate much higher than ever before.
So yeah to get away from that there's a "slow food" movement and "organic" and all the other labels. What's funny is this is what the rest of the world called "cooking" for thousands of years. We are only now discovering this at large levels here. But lets face it, it isn't like industrialized food is going away. In fact it's growing. We've outsourced cooking and this is the result. And the cost of ingredients has risen where as fast food has gotten cheaper over the last 30 years, adjusted for inflation. And there's the gap you're talking about.
But this is creeping across the world. Europe has had a big taste of this and it's growing quickly. Places like India now are changing this way too. What's in those boxes will just be adapted to local pallets.
I just come back from California, were I found the food very good, especially vegetables, fruits and beer in comparison with French products. Didn't know about the cheeses though.
Interesting, for for ~$250k (or ~400k if you do it via loan and include repayment cost) you can buy a nice house to your kid instead of burning that on 4y pseudo education.
Knowledge (from best universities as well) is free nowadays. I'm sure for 4y in solitude of your own house and internet knowledge you can advance your skills a lot.
> Knowledge (from best universities as well) is free nowadays. I'm sure for 4y in solitude of your own house and internet knowledge you can advance your skills a lot.
That's true, but one thing missing is personal discipline; that is, staying on track, avoiding procrastination, and actually doing the work instead of playing video games or watching TV.
Most people need the discipline of having to show up in a physical classroom, having deadlines for assignments, having an obligation to do work. Not everyone, but most people need this.
This brings up an idea of a meetup-style classroom: Suppose we had a physical weekly meeting of everyone in a city who's interested in learning genetics, or Java, or French, or oil painting.
At the first meeting, we'd agree on what online books, videos, or courses we'd study, and each week we'd meet to discuss what we'd learned so far, tutor each other, maybe even make tests for each other. It would serve as that little push that most people need.
> Most people need the discipline of having to show up in a physical classroom
Went to UC Berkeley and literally did not show up to class except for finals. Nobody forces you to go to class when you hit a 4 year institution, esp public ones. For a lot of people, the value of going to college is going to college itself, not the actual education.
> Went to UC Berkeley and literally did not show up to class except for finals.
I assume you did well in your courses, hence you're the exception with the necessary self discipline. What you did won't work for most people.
Even though no one takes attendance at Berkeley, the classrooms weren't empty, were they? So some kind of subtle pressure is being exerted for all those students to still show up. They're thinking about all the money they paid, parents will ask, "How was class?", friends will say, "I didn't see you in class today".
Some students learn better by being hearing the lecture rather than (in addition to) reading the textbook. But having the lecture imposes an obligation and schedule as well.
Here's a thought experiment: Suppose Berkeley eliminated all classroom lectures but had videos or transcripts of all the lectures, and still had all the same assignments and exams, do you think the pass/fail rate would stay the same? Not for you, but in general.
Degree is standard enforced on humans. The value of a degree is the information it conveys. A degree is only as valuable as the least skilled person having it. Only compulsory classes and pass/fail grades matter.
Art school provide a wonderful playground of networking. This could be the price to pay. Problem: with networking, you cannot be sur that because you paid the fees it will help you with your "career" (if it can be called this way in the art world).
Anybody pretending that it's possible to do art without being a "nose-browner" lies.
Anybody pretending to be a "creator" often forget to cite his/her sources and influences.
I am not very astonished that, in a domain like art, that stays a dedicated way for higher classes to demonstrate their superiority by owning costly art, prices can be so high for education. But I don't call it an art school, I call it a bank.
Depends on what you really want to do. If you want to be a life sciences researcher then you need all the expensive equipment that only institutions can afford.
>If you want to be a life sciences researcher then you need all the expensive equipment that only institutions can afford
Agreed. The same goes for most engineering fields too.
Software development is one of the few high-tech fields where one can reasonably attempt to get an education through online courses, but it's becoming so commoditized that the bottom is going to drop out and drop out hard, eventually.
But you can't play with all that expensive equipment until you get to at least the graduate level. Take chemistry for example. For your entire undergraduate degree you're doing strictly cookbook procedures in the lab. Other than a bit of technique, everything you learn in undergraduate labwork you could have learned from a book.
Try going to the lab instructor and asking him or her if you can come back later at night to run some of your own experiments. You'll get a hearty laugh.
The expensive equipment becomes an argument in favor of a traditional education only after you get to the post-grad level when you have real access to that equipment.
The first specific problem with internships instead of school labs is schools like to be a one stop shop so how do you guarantee everyone accepted into a school will be accepted into at least one productive lab? Remember the only criteria for school entrance is a pulse and ability to get a guaranteed loan for a ridiculous amount of money. The odds that a physical school with X slots for chemists precisely overlaps professional demand for X chemistry interns is pretty low so either the private labs are going to be understaffed or there will be (profitable) students who can't get required internship places.
The second problem with internships instead of school labs is the classic birth problem where we produce too many trained chemists for too few jobs. And flooding the labor market with free intern labor isn't going to help the fraction of grads who can get a job in the field. The result would be even more people with chemistry degrees doing anything other than chemistry as a profession after graduation.
The third problem with internships instead of school is related to the second in that pre-med uses ochem as a weedout, or used to. So "most people" trying to learn ochem are trying to get into med school, no interest at all in learning ochem itself. That means the vast majority of chemistry interns are going to be pretty useless and unmotivated in the professional labs, so the few interns trying to become actual chemists are going to get ripped off by being ignored.
Those are very chemistry specific problems but something similar might apply to many other subjects.
Did you design and run your own independent experiments as an undergrad? Or did you do assigned and supervised lab work following exact procedures from an exercise book in a group setting with a lab instructor watching over you, and you had to be done and out within 2-3 hours?
I ran my own independent experiments, usually designed to help a graduate student with one of his projects, and was then left to my own devices. If it was done in 2-3 hours, it was because the cultures needed to incubate overnight anyway.
I did group lab work with an instructor as well, but my university had a pretty vibrant undergraduate research program.
Law schools and medical schools are expensive, because lawyers and doctors (at least in the US) can expect to have good money afterwards.
On the other hand, art schools or, say, a degree in English poetry are expensive because those are luxury goods. Those are favored by rich people who never have to work a single day in their lives, but they want to be art connoisseurs.
Pursuing an art degree if you have to work for a living later is dubious, to say the least. Taking a huge debt forward it is pure, undiluted madness.
In music it may even be worse, because the top conservatories award a good number of full scholarships. A high percentage of the students who go on to have successful careers are already great when they arrive, full scholarship in hand.
In many cases, the demographic that actually pays the sky high tuition isn't getting the best version of the school. They aren't in the elite ensembles or the advanced courses with famous teachers. Launching a successful career from that starting point is even more difficult, debt aside.
I have been a working writer as well as a software engineer. I have been a broke poet and fiction writer (for years) and a senior level engineer (for years). I get to be a homeowner because of the software skills and I sent my kid to a good college. Overall I have moved back and forth. I've had 4 books published and I've had some really exciting tech jobs. So I have a 'both sides' perspective.
I have a computer science degree, not a writing degree. If I had gotten an MFA, I might have been able to get a teaching job in creative writing, but the the lit world is more status conscious so I would have had to go to a great school, say Brown, or the like. My CSC degree is from a state university and it has gotten me into top companies and start ups. I did not have to go into debt for my incredibly useful degree.
I think the tech world is actually more decent, fair, and respectful than the creative arts world. The rank exploitation of low paid writers (including the adjunct jobs most get) is truly awful. The level of personal sabotage and jealousy in the creative arts world, where there is not enough to go around, is disheartening to experience. My artsy friends are high horse about the tech bros but they need to be more mindful of the practices in their own back yard - which are worse, in my informed opinion.
If you want an art career you have to plan strategically. You have to go to a great school for an MFA, one that has buzz (e.g. Yale), and you have to network like crazy (there are ways of describing that that will get my post blocked), and you have to be a bit cunning, and you have to have family resources. Oh, you also have to get that MFA right away out of college, because the art world grooves on youth. Possibly for years and years you'll have to work hard without any idea if it will get you anywhere, although the more years go by, the more your chances dwindle. You also need to always be doing self-promotion. It's endless and I can't stand it. I am in that respect a typical engineer and thinking in these ways is unpleasant.
One of the weird things about the art world is that it requires so much money to get a career that rich kids are very over-represented. Young people from all over the world make it - there's lots of cultural diversity, but the other kind, the economic kind, not so much. It's creepy. I think of that every time I see another movie star kid who is making a movie. It's not cool people. It's disgusting.
But my overall message for all you tech geeks is that if you want to be an artist too, you can be. Go for it, be the best you can be, take it seriously, etc. Just realize it is not only hard but somewhat horrible. I have actually had some success and truly it made me love computer science even more.
Well I can't see that suggestion resulting in a gallery show for anyone who follows that advice. If you are an outsider, how would you ever get into legitimate galleries to show your work? Never happens because your school background is extremely important there, much like how it is true that anyone on earth can write a Novel but it is extremely unlikely you will find a publisher without being in a top writing school.
If you're not in a top writing school - you submit your novel to a publisher and it sits in the slush pile for a few months. You write another novel while you're waiting. When you get the rejection slip, you submit your second novel, and you submit the rejected novel to a different publisher. While waiting for the next round of rejections, you write your third novel. Eventually you get something published. Until then you keep writing and mooching off your spouse.
If you ARE in a top writing school... well... you do EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
Not necessarily. If you know people, they would be willing to agent your work to represent it to larger publishing companies that only take agented work. Then you have a much higher chance of being accepted before you write another novel and then it's simply a matter of giving your latest manuscript to your editor and seeing what they say.
There are other career paths for artists than selling in a gallery.
Video games. Comics. VFX in movies. Animated movies. Admittedly there are more people looking for a lot of those jobs than there are gigs. But if you find a good gig and keep it going, you can have a pretty nice life. The connections you make in school can help you find some of these jobs, but so can a solid portfolio. Nobody cares where you went, just whether you can show up and do your part of whatever multi-person, multi-year job you're involved in.
And these days there's also Patreon. There's a few people making multiple thousands a month drawing stuff on there. Mostly porn. And there's a lot more people making smaller amounts for various projects. Including me; when I'm in the groove of cranking out eight pages of my comics over a month, I cover most of my rent.
Gallery art? Sure, that's one way to make money with your art. But it's far from the only one.
Its possible OP is trolling us because I can't think of any famous or good novelist who went to a top writing school.
The concept of for profit school obviously is recent compared to the idea of writing a novel so the class of novelists who didn't go to novelist school obviously contains everything before the student loan boom.
Stephan King, former English teacher and janitor.
Issac Asimov, former biochemist
Umberto Eco, former philosophy degree followed by TV/Radio editor
J.K. Rowling, former BA in French who preferred to read English Lit and worked as a secretary, clinically depressed and unemployed
Hunter S Thompson, former high school dropout, journalist with some audited journalism classes
Ernest Hemingway, former high school grad, served in WWI, journalist with no higher education.
I'm sure there's someone out there with best sellers or Nobel prizes AND went to a writing school, but an anecdote or two proves little.
And that is just one school. If you throw in all the other top programs you are looking at thousands of writers who are pretty much all top earners in their field. Sure, you might be the next Ernest Hemingway or Hunter S Thompson but I think in both cases what you are looking at are writers who filled a certain ideological void in Cold War america that perpetuated certain myths about creativity that were politically fashionable and the market for presenting yourself that way in a now highly professionalized writing world (after the student loan boom) is very very small. People just aren't looking for another Hunter S Thompson to wander around drunk spouting scandalous opinions and having counter cultural experiences. Same with Hemingway: we get it... Men struggle to grasp the duties of masculinity in a world that is fraught with danger. Yawn. There just isn't any material left to write about in those areas and you have to go to school to learn how to get out beyond those bare bones topics by studying past writers and meeting good current writers. Same with "Art" in my opinion. I mean sure you MIGHT be another Basquiat or Banksy but it's been done.
You can start in the SF field with short stories, then your manuscript will get looked at if you are good. It's not unheard of for complete n00bs to win major awards. MAKING a living of it is still hard.
This is sorta unrelated, but related to engineering.
On my first day in college, the Dean of my Aerospace Engineering program and two other people came into my first huge classroom and said, "there are too many people in this program. Aerospace companies will not hire you. They will hire Electrical Engineers and Mechanical Engineers before they will hire you. If you have a chance, transfer to another program."
They were probably right. I transferred after a semester. Most of the people I know who graduated in Aerospace Engineering ended up writing software (without much training.)
I know people (very closely) who still have crushing debt from art school. And engineering school who can't pass the Professional Engineer test. And law school who can't pass the bar after multiple tries. I studied Electrical Engineering but now I just write software, which was probably my first love.
I can't recommend anything to you, but this article resonated with my experience. If you're really good, go for that thing. Don't pay someone a lot to tell you what you're already good at.
The tragedy of unaffordable art school cuts even deeper than the scope of this article. It's really sad, more and more art school is a playground of the wealthy leisure class, leading to a smaller pool of outsider perspectives and new ideas. Hopefully things will change within these institutions, but until then, as the author states, the internet is quite good for basic instruction. You still can't replace the value of group critique, building relationships with your instructions, and networking- but that isn't exactly worth a quarter of a million dollars either.
1. Value optionality. $300k in debt takes too many options off the table, $50k not so much.
2. College, even (and in some cases especially) art school, is extremely valuable and increases optionality. consider Virginia Commonwealth University. It's a cheap, public school with one of the best and most functional programs in the country. Especially if you're in Virginia, take a look.
I graduated from art school and am now a software engineer. I went because when you're really good at drawing in high school--everyone tells you that you should be an artist, regardless of what else you may be good at.
I believe my degree was worth it. If you want to learn technical skills, this article is spot on and has some great advice. There are some great resources he gives for learning this stuff fairly cheap.
What I learned in art school was critical thinking, problem solving, perception, and observation. The most important things you get out of art school that are applicable to software:
1. How to critique work and talk about your work with others. Most studio classes are basically just a long critique of everyone's work. I use these skills everyday in software in code reviews and in my role as a manager mentoring others.
2. Problem solving. We regularly had assignments like "Draw a sequence of images defining density" or "Create a sculpture that defines the space between an architectural space and your body" or "Create an invention and build it with only brown paper lunch bags." It takes some novel thinking to come up with creative solutions to that shit.
3. How to deliver. You need to get stuff done and produce a volume of work to get good.
Of the good friends I had in art school:
- One is a paper sculptor and has made work for Facebook, Apple, Google, the Queen of Jordan, and has been a guest on Sesame Street. He also works with research scientists on solar cell development.
- One has been the visual effects supervisor for the Harry Potter films, the Dark Knight, and Star Trek Beyond.
- One is the director of a glass blowing school.
- One is a executive creative director at a large design agency.
I would guess that every one of them would attribute part of their success to the art school they attended.
Or just come to Australia where a three year fine arts degree can be found for about AU 12 grand per year. Fees will vary depending on the Uni.
Australian students pay less because the government contributes some of the cost. We might pay 10 grand per year instead of 12 in above example.
I regret studying a BA at age 18. The internet wasnt quite around yet and I just didnt care about anything. I went to Art School after the BA and have no regrets. Art School is an awesome thing to do in your early twenties. Its where I figured out a few very important things.
Online resources are amazing now but its important to have that human interaction life experience when formulating your creative foundations. Mingling with other students and lecturers is to mingle with ideas and opportunities.
We as a society need a different post-secondary experience.
I went to art school at a state university. Ended up with a BFA in studio art. When I get my background check pulled it just says BFA from STATE UNIVERSITY 2011. It doesn't say it was in art. After that I went to a tech school for a semester and started working in manufacturing. Having my BFA was critical in jumping through the HR loop to get to my current position of analyst.
My department hires with a bias towards fresh graduates with engineering degrees. These workers are great for 6-18 months but they always leave for greener pastures. I keep getting raises to stay were I am. Out of the degrees that the long term coworkers hold, most are in physics, mathematics, or criminology.
I don't completely disagree, but who is at fault there? Most people are >= 18 when they go to college. They're adults, and parents are usually also involved in planning how to finance their children's college education. If they're not going into it with total knowledge at that point, then what should the threshold be for when people are qualified to make their own life decisions? When they're 30 and already self-sufficient? If anything, the government should be more restrained about giving out student loans to protect itself and to protect taxpayers, not to protect adults with poor judgement from themselves. I think much more can be done WRT making sure students understand what they're getting into, but it's not a black and white issue.
> I don't completely disagree, but who is at fault there? Most people are >= 18 when they go to college. They're adults,
In many jurisdictions 18 is still considered too young to drink, buy cigarettes, etc. - likely too young to have lived on their own or practiced much self-sufficiency. Being an adult isn't that binary - it's more a set of skills and responsibilities that build up.
As currently stands, large amounts of non-dischargeable student debt seems to be one of those things where the latter is suddenly cranked up to 11? Seems a bit harsh. Although perhaps less harsh than it initially sounds with income based repayment options...
Ahh - perhaps less interesting than the question of fault, is "who can reasonably and effectively do something about it".
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. IMO 18 is much too young to understand the consequences of huge student debt, especially when there's so much cultural pressure to be a student.
There are similar scams in writing, where MFAs have become increasingly expensive and less and less likely to be a good investment.
There's no benign motivation here. It's simple greed by the loan shark companies and university administrators.
More civilised countries understand that a pool of self-supporting graduates is a relatively cheap investment with huge social and economic benefits.
US culture still seems to be spinning around "Why should my taxes pay for your education?" - which is a naive question that many countries worked out the answer to more than half a century ago.
It's more that age doesn't actually impart you any kind of wisdom on its own. A lot of people grow up in misinformation and no amount of years can make up for it. The concepts of adulthood and maturity are not real beyond the biological definitions.
When I was 18 I did what I was told. Mostly, anyway. If my parents told me my future depended on taking a 250'000$ loan, I might have just done it, especially if they raised me in that belief.
I'm increasingly confused by college education discussions. ~$200k+ is a serious, life-changing investment for most people. Bankrolling more than a fraction of that with loans with no plan to make a return on investment (a salary, generally) doesn't even start to make sense. Normally I don't struggle to replace words like "stupid" with something more descriptive, but here I find myself struggling (indicating that I must have a blind spot here). If you're wealthy, who cares, its discretionary income and you should make use of your privilege. If you're not three standard-deviations from the mean in terms of personal or family wealth though, why does this conversation even need to happen? Like at all? Borrowing money without a repayment plan to buy something that isn't worth very much seems self-destructive to the point that if we think buying/selling heroin should be illegal (I don't, but w/e), we should definitely think buying/selling massive crippling debt should be illegal.
For contrast, here's a sane decision: I recently went back to school at 28 to get a B.S. in Computer Science. I bankrolled the degree with a combination of savings, a loan from my mother, and a federal loan. Going back and getting a second degree was a calculated (and in hindsight very good) investment. I put myself around $30k underwater all told, out of the $60k odd required to earn the degree and live for three years in Minneapolis. Before sinking money and opportunity cost into a degree, I worked the math out, computed an expected salary range upon graduation, and said "this is a good investment." I worked my ass off (I worked throughout to keep costs down and to get experience as a junior engineer) and made it work.
The outcome doesn't really matter, but as it happens I was fortunate and landed well above what I thought my expected salary range would be, then got promoted 18 months in to a compensation level I personally think is obscene (I figured I'd be in the 55-80k range, out of college I landed in the 120k range with a move to another state, now I'm in the 180k range total comp). The loans were paid off from remaining savings and the signing bonus for the job.
What I did is an option for most people. It requires nothing more than common sense and some calculated risk-taking.
And p.s., as someone who spent their 20's dealing with some pretty crippling mental health issues and generally avoiding reality for the better part of a decade, you don't need to get a fucking college degree when you're 22 (although if you know what you're doing, go for it!). Stay smart, read books, keep up with basic problem solving, take a community college math course or two (take calc 3 or physics 2 or whatever), learn to program, and keep yourself employed. Invest in knowledge and experience, shed your ego, and learn to be a person who makes things and improves the world around them. Don't dilly-dally around with this clueless fake-school b.s.
The Watts Atelier that Noah mentions also has a great online program with instructor feedback. I've been doing it for about a year now and all I can say is that for $200 a month it's a steal.
It's a shame that art schools are in the state they're in. Where I'm from (South Africa) the tuition fees aren't too bad, however, the training you receive doesn't cultivate any skill (it's mostly contemporary/conceptually driven). Thank goodness for the web!
Art schools these days also include design programs, and designers are actually in demand so you can make a career out of that, if you wish. RSID, for example, has a strong visual, graphical, and interaction design programs. Ya, design isn't art, not even close, but if its your thing, you shouldn't avoid art schools just because they also teach art.
I graduated from art school and went on to do commercial illustration, design, 3D work for TV commercials, then movies and ultimately the games industry.
I'm not saying the qualification helped, but the guidance and time to shape and hone me as an artist was invaluable.
$245,816 for a degree is damn cruel. tuition costs are probably one of the top causes of stagnation - i'm sure most people do learn something worth while... but damn!
My wife went to what she calls a semi-atelier school. It was tiny. She graduated with 24 students. One her classmates and long-time friends went on to his MFA at Yale.
I didn't go to art school to pursue a career in art. The art school I went to basically said, "don't" - it's a lottery anyways. The people who can make a living as an artist are a few dozen worldwide.
I went to art school to think laterally and critically. I went to have my own ideas of what creativity is exhaustively challenged.
You can also go to art school to make those social connections to the larger art world - the art world is nothing but a huge web of social ties. I found that part of it pretty dark and disgusting, really. I just wasn't willing to stab so many people in the back to get ahead.
My curriculum was not centered around skills and technique - you were to learn that yourself. It was centered around your ideas - get your ideas out of your head and onto a stage basically. The school and my program were influenced by the Black Mountain school in N. Carolina where individuals like B. Fuller, Merce Cunningham, and John Cage taught. Interdisciplinary. It was all a living experiment, and all my higher level courses had, "Experimental" in their name.
I don't regret one second of art school. You get out what you get in. I still would never, ever pursue a career as an artist. I've done lots of creatively amazing projects, but it wasn't for the money - this country I live in (USA) at least really doesn't find monetary value in the arts.