[Acrylic-bob]

To be more helpful I have put Gayle's comments in Red and my response in black, well it saves all that cutting and pasting of html code.


You can teach ART, if you couldn't why would there be Art colleges in the first place? Are you saying you learnt nothing at university whilst doing your fine art degree?


First mistake: not reading the argument fully. I was careful to point out that the necessary skills can most certainly be taught; that is what art schools are for. Some institutions teach well, some badly, most are midlingly indifferent.

Are you saying you learnt nothing at university whilst doing your fine art degree?


Au contraire mon cher, I learnt a great deal, the chief being how how little I knew.

I found that the fine art students spent many hours discussing and debating issues but not actually 'doing' anything.

And this is precisley how one learns just how little one knows and how to go about rectifying the situation. We learn as much from our fellows as from our tutors, in some cases more!

You can teach history of art, mechanics of art, you can teach stage craft, you can teach music (remember, we're not just talking about visual art, we're talking about all genre of arts - film, drama, music etc). A great pianist does not become a great pianist without having first learnt how to use a piano.

We have been through this, of course the skills can be taught, if that is what you mean by "the mechanics of art" and of necessity acquiring the skills must come before all else.

Art does not just happen

Well, actually, it does, but more about that later.

there has to be talent and ability, skill and learning but most of all, there has to opportunity. Some people have potential but because the tools aren't available or the opportunities aren't there for them they are unable to fulfill their potential.

This is the commonplace truth of all the spheres of human endeavour, not just art. Life is unfair and despite our best endeavours society is not just and equitable. Indeed, to take the proposition to its logical origin, who can say how many Mozarts or Spielbergs have been flushed down hospital loos as a result of the availability of abortion on demand? Would you care to argue a case that to protect and promote the potential of the unborn that abortion should not be available?

This is partly about creating the opportunities for the very talented and for creating enjoyable activities for the enthusiastic.

Only partly? What are the other parts about? It strikes me that the "very talented", if they are so, are more than capable of shifting for themselves and overcoming life's little hurdles, I know I and many others have. The cream rises to the top. Even in the marxist paradise of the USSR, to paraphrase Shaw, those who can, did, and were often comparatively very well rewarded for their efforts. I have no argument against "creating enjoyable activities for the enthusiastic.", But it isn't ART. It is what it is, an opportunity to indulge in activities outside the normal run of the mill. An entertainment or divertissment. Dress it up and lard it with high blown phraseology as you will, but it will never be anything different nor will it produce anything of objective and enduring worth except, and very occaisionally, by accident rather than intent.

You don't have to turn out a great artist or artiste for them to have enjoyed an artistic experience.

By admitting as much, in a way, you make my argument for me. You are providing the same thing, but in a slightly different form, as the Civic Theatre: pabulum for the masses. Hence the suggestion of "Bollywood aerobics" classes along with making good some of the deficiencies of the state education system.


Art needn't always be about the end product either, it can be about the process.

This statement is straight out of the Arts Administration For All handbook circa 1980. It was discredited years ago and I highlight it here merely to illustrate the redundancy of your thinking. Pass the lentils Mavis. I usually find that people who spout this meaningless drivel are also convinced that sandals are a good idea and that tie-dying can make a positive fashion statement.

Finally, some art does not happen without organisation i.e. someone co-ordinating a drama club or someone co-ordinating a photography exhibition. Some of the Arts are not a solo pursuits and it does take someone who has the ability to present the opporunities to people for things to happen.

Well, I was just waiting for this one! The last resort of the beurocrat - self referential self justification. How did Michelangelo ever manage the sistine ceiling without an army of facilitators and report writers and feasibility studyists to help him understand what he was doing? The poor chap must have been in a real quandry, when all he had to fall back on was his own abilities, inspiration and vision.

Nothing that you have said here convinces me that this little project will be anything other than an exercise in bidding for cash and then wasting it. Casting pearls before swine. Or, as I said in my initial post, more of the same old same old. It will be the same tired old drivel that the borough was so graciously conceded by Mid Pennine Arts.

Art cannot be taught. And this is true because ART is a subjective experience. It is a nonspecific qualitative judgement that cannot be equated with the innate ability to create. Art can be experienced, and ways of experiencing art can certainly be taught. Ways of seeing can likewise be taught. What cannot be taught is the passion one must feel to create art in the first place.

Or to put it another way, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.