The Atelier in the Twenty-First Century
By Emilio Longo
2015 (revised 2018)
The training of artists in the twenty-first century is a concept that seems to raise two different arguments. The first concerns issues surrounding “content” and the second, with more traditional ideas of “craft”. It seems as we progressed into the twentieth-century, the historical standards of craftsmanship that once governed the creation of representational drawings, paintings and sculptures became obsolete; due to a number of progressive, social and political reasons (Annigoni, 1947; Graves, 2003; Cecil, 2009; Ross, 2014; Gottsegen, 2003). Consequently, current Australian (and international) TAFE and university art programs seem to favour the argument of “content over craft” (“Diploma of visual”, 2018; “Bachelor of fine”, 2018). This has resulted in generations of art students being uninformed about the principles, methods and ideologies exemplified in traditional visual arts practices (Gray, n.d; Keller, 2015; Ross, 2014).
This essay will explore the atelier (studio, or workshop) model and the contemporary model of higher education visual arts training, to learn of their differences. An explanation on the origins of the atelier and how it has survived by means of lineage will be given. Moreover, higher education art programs and the atelier model will be evaluated, to arrive at the understanding of whether they can co-exist, in one setting. This will ultimately lead to the conclusion, by considering the place that the atelier occupies in twenty-first century visual arts pedagogy.
Deconstruction of the Atelier Model
The nineteenth-century was the period that the atelier was most prevalent (Bougie, 1998). During this time, Paris was the center of the art world. Therefore, the city attracted art students from all over the globe, who wanted to gain the skills necessary, in order to create masterful art (Goldstein, 1996). Many Americans such as; Thomas Eakins and John Singer Sargent studied in Paris. In fact, 2,200 Americans born by 1880 had undergone academic training in Paris (Holsapple, 1998). Once they received their training in an academy and/or private atelier, many of these artists returned home to begin teaching and passing on the French academic tradition. However, at this time no atelier, or academy like the French models became established in America (Holsapple, 1998). In mentioning these artists’ formative years; a point must be made to emphasise that academic training was not an easy endeavour. The road to mastery required the student to be submissive to their master and to have the perseverance to undergo many years of disciplined art instruction (Gjertson, 2001). Diligence, patience and tenacity were essential qualities that every student possessed, in order to be successful with their training. A quote from the eighteenth-century French painter, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin, provides us with valuable insight into the struggles of the student undergoing academic training;
“They put a crayon in our hands when we are seven or eight years old. We begin to draw from models of eyes, mouths, noses, ears, then of feet and hands. For a long period our backs are bent over our portfolios in front of the Hercules or the Torso and you have not seen the tears brought on by this Satyr, this Gladiator, this Venus de Medici, this Antaeus…. After we have spent days and worked nights by lamplight before stationary and inanimate forms they confront us with life and, suddenly, the labour of all the preceding years seems to count for nothing…. One must teach the eye to see nature, and how many have not seen it and never will! It is the torment of our lives. We are kept working five or six years from the living model before they turn us over to our own genius, if we have any…. He who has not realised the difficulties of this art does in it nothing worthwhile” (Gammell, 1946, p. 96).
As the twentieth-century approached, the options that art students had to receive training was limited to universities, museums and independent Modernist art schools (Gottsegen, 2003). It is precisely at this time that the atelier model disintegrated and consequently, the quality of drawings, paintings and sculptures suffered greatly (Graves, 2003). The academic methods which had been passed on from master-to-pupil for centuries, had now become lost. However, due to the efforts of a few courageous artist-teachers, the atelier system of training managed to be saved and preserved until our current day, by means of lineage (Trippi, 2012; Fernandez, 2017).
Survival Through Lineage
R.H. Ives Gammell was a painter, author and teacher, who has an important place in the history of American Realism (Gjertson, 2010; Kamhi, 1990). Gammell was born in Providence, Rhode Island in 1893, at about the same time that the French academies and ateliers were being deconstructed (Graves, 2003). In 1911, he enrolled in the School of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, where he met impressionist painters who included; Edmund C. Tarbell, Frank W. Benson, Joseph R. DeCamp and William M. Paxton (Bougie, 1995). This confraternity of artists were part of the Boston School and had received academic training from teachers who were in the lineage of the nineteenth-century French academic tradition (Gjertson, 2010; Graves, 2003). The Boston School painters were competent academic draughtsman and were inspired by the colours used by the French impressionists. The most distinguished painter from the school was Paxton, who would ultimately become Gammell’s mentor (Graves, 2003).
Paxton was an American painter, who had studied with the nineteenth-century French academic artist, Jean-Léon Gérôme at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts (School of Fine Arts) in Paris (Kamhi, 1990; Gjertson, 2001). Gammell absorbed Paxton’s teachings and would come to pass on his knowledge of traditional picture-making, for the remainder of his life. A case can be made that Gammell’s legacy is not only remembered as an important painter, but also for the writings he made, where he explained the principles and craft of the previous centuries of picture-making. Through his teaching, he was able to pass on these values to his students (Kamhi, 1990).
In 1946, Gammell wrote a book titled; Twilight of Painting, which he dedicated to future art students (Gammell, 1946). In this book, he explains why the great workmanship of painters from previous centuries was destroyed, by the advent of Modernism and the avant-garde (Gammell, 1946). Gammell started teaching in the 1930s, however, his most serious students came to find him in 1946, after Twilight of Painting was published (Bougie, 1995).
Gammell taught at the Fenway Studios in Boston, where many students came to him, after relating to what he wrote about in his book (Kearns, 2009). These students were frustrated about the propagation of abstraction that art schools supported during this period. Gammell would keep his class sizes to a minimum, to ensure he had adequate one-on-one time with each of his students (a strategy which was used in the nineteenth-century French ateliers). An important point to acknowledge is that Gammell charged his students no fees, as he was an independently wealthy man (Bougie, 1995). He saw it as his responsibility to pass on the great tradition of picture-making to the next generation of artists, as it was passed on to him. And he expected that his students would do the same for the subsequent generation (Bougie, 1995). There were instances when a student would contact Gammell to see about training with him and he would say no; he was testing the student’s will power to see how eagerly they wanted to learn this art form (he would expect them to have the persistence to ask again) (Bougie, 1995). Gammell never underestimated the difficulties of learning the craft and art of traditional picture-making, he stated;
“The creation of an effective expression or illusion of three-dimensional reality on a flat surface is a heartbreakingly difficult art. Only a few individuals are born in each generation with sufficient talent to be good painters, fewer still to be great ones” (as cited in Kamhi, 1990, p. 2).
Many of Gammell’s students became painters of great calibre; many of which are still alive and working today (Gjertson, 2001). To re-emphasise Gammell’s relevance in the history of American painting, it is important to understand more about the lineage he belongs to. As was mentioned earlier; Gammell’s teacher was Paxton, whose teacher was Gérôme. To go even further back; Gérôme’s teacher was Paul Delaroche, in turn, whose teacher was Antoine-Jean Gros. Finally, Gros’s teacher was the preeminent nineteenth-century Neoclassical French painter; Jacques-Louis David (“J. Hess studios”, n.d.).
One of Gammell’s most influential pupils was a painter and teacher by the name of Richard F. Lack (Torres, 2006). After Gammell’s death in 1981, Lack became the artist who carried on Gammell’s legacy, through passing on his teachings to the next generation of students (Gjertson, 2001). He would also become the artist who is regarded as the founder of the contemporary atelier movement (Aristides, 2006). Lack’s training began at the Minneapolis School of Art. However, his interest in connecting to a form of painting which he could not find in a Modernist art school, led him to Fenway studios in Boston, to study with Gammell from 1950 to 1956 (“Richard F. Lack”, n.d.).
In 1969, Lack opened Atelier Lack in Minneapolis; the curriculum of which was based on what he had learnt from Gammell (“Richard F. Lack”, n.d.). Atelier Lack became the environment that kept traditional picture-making alive and well, through offering rigorous academic drawing and painting instruction, which was based on the principles and methods used by the nineteenth-century French ateliers and the Boston school (Gjertson, 2010). At this time, Atelier Lack was one of the few places in the world where one could get an academic training in drawing and painting (“Richard F. Lack”, n.d.). Many of Lack’s students became fine painters and in turn, opened ateliers of their own; the majority of which were based on the model of Atelier Lack (Gjertson, 2001). This has ultimately resulted in the fulfillment of both, Gammell and Lack’s life’s work.
Lack is also credited for coining the term Classical Realism. He used the term in an article that was written about his work relating to his solo exhibition held in Minneapolis in 1974 (Torres, 2006). He then used the term in 1982 for an exhibition that he and his students organised titled; Classical Realism: The Other Twentieth Century (Torres, 2006). "Classical Realism" was established to differentiate their work from that of other styles of realism which were prevalent at the time. Artworks that are referred to as “Classical Realism” exhibit a combination of nineteenth-century French academic draughtsmanship and the colour of the Boston School (Gjertson, 2010). Today, the term is generally used to identify the work of artists’ who have trained in an atelier (although, this is a far cry from what Lack intended the term to mean).
In 1992, Lack retired from teaching and two of his former students; Dale Redpath and Cyd Wicker took over Atelier Lack, moved it to another location (although still located in Minneapolis) and renamed it The Atelier, which is still functioning today (“Histroy”, n.d.). Richard Lack passed away in September, 2009 (Gjertson, 2010).
As was mentioned previously; many of Lack’s students opened ateliers which are based on his teachings. The majority of these ateliers are offering a rigorous, three-to-four-year program, whereby students are trained in the disciplines of academic drawing, painting and sculpture (“General description”, n.d.). These enviroments have become established all over the world and students travel internationally in search of academic training, which they are not able to find in TAFE and university art programs.
The Concept of Training in Contemporary Visual Arts Pedagogy
Visual arts training is a concept that has become convoluted in the framework of higher education (Gottsegen, 2003). “Training” in university art schools is based on the familiarisation and implication of computer based programs, that is; becoming familiar with digital image processing, video art and an emphasis on new media experimentation is generally encouraged (“Diploma of visual”, 2018; “Bachelor of fine”, 2018). Terms such as; “unlearning” and “deskilling” are promoted in these contexts, in order to persuade students away from pursuing traditional approaches to artmaking (Gray, n.d.). Training in the business of being a contemporary, exhibiting artist is also given, that is; how to write grants and proposals, how to establish an online presence and how to apply to galleries (which is often encouraged while the student is still in their first year of art school). The idea of lineage is irrelevant in these contexts, due to the nature of contemporary art being autonomous (Kearney, 1984).
This form of training is satisfactory and it is no question that it has a place in the sphere of twenty-first century visual arts pedagogy. However, this training is often propagandised by academia, through an elitist attitude that promotes this contemporary approach as the only valid model of visual arts training (Ross, 2014; Gottsegen, 2003). As a result, academic drawing, painting and sculpting principles and methods have become extraneous in these environments. The students who are interested in traditional art, are then ultimately viewed as reactionaries; conservative luddites if you will. This kind of ignorance can be detrimental to the technical and aesthetic formation of contemporary art students’ (Keller, 2015). Invariably, students who are interested in drawing, painting and sculpting as it is traditionally know, still need to be taught the theories behind the principles of the crafts and how to apply them in practice, in order to create art with technical and aesthetic intelligence.
It appears that the model of higher education visual arts training and that of the atelier, are polar opposites. The former being devoted to complete freedom without any discipline, concerned only with students’ conceptual development and the latter devoted to attaining craft and training the eye, without any kind of conceptual formation, creating;
“Content-starved realist artists, who can draw beautiful figures but cannot incorporate the figure into a meaningful narrative” (as cited in Trippi, 2012, p. 79).
The solution to this dilemma seems simple. Higher education art programs need to offer both, traditional and progressive visual arts training in a neutral context, in order for them to co-exist. One can be a student in the painting department of a TAFE, or university art program and receive no information on the actual principles and working methods of painting. Instead, a belief in finding one’s inner voice and individuality is encouraged. Furthermore, an environment where; “you can do whatever you want” is the mantra, with hardly any discussion on craftsmanship, or the mastery of technical procedures. This doctrine results in artworks being produced that are a “expressions of the painterly”, which then become removed from the idea of painting, as it has traditionally been known. Should then the department still be called painting? Perhaps a more appropriate title would be; “experimental practice”, or “alternative art”. This would more accurately describe the doings of many higher education painting departments. This ultimately leads to the question; what then is painting today?
As has been advocated in this essay; the main problem lies within the inaccessibility of learning the principles, crafts and values of the traditional visual arts, in the TAFE and university sector. Traditional visual arts training is out there, however, it is only available to those who are willing to re-locate and pay upfront, a substantial amount of money for this somewhat anachronistic art education; this seems like an injustice (“Admissions & aid”, n.d.). We are not that far away from the nineteenth-century French academic tradition. As has been evidenced; it is only as far as a teacher’s, teacher’s, teacher and we have access to some of the knowledge that the academic artists of the nineteenth-century had.
This essay is by no means trying to imply that older ways of art making should replace the new. Rather, this essay supports the argument that it is the form of the great art of the past, which many art students wish to reconnect with. One still needs to have something to say which relates to our current times and this is precisely why the doctrine supported by TAFE and university art programs is valid. They offer the cutting edge of contemporary visual arts education, for they guide students in developing an analytical mind, by helping them engage in higher order abstract thinking (“Diploma of visual”, 2018; “Bachelor of fine”, 2018). Students become familiar with current issues through their studio investigations and research, which ultimately reveals the state of the world today. The agenda of contemporary visual arts training is still in line with training students to see. Although, “seeing” is no longer taught through a technical, craft based, “eye training” sense, but rather, from an intellectual and theoretically critical, visual analysis perspective (“Postmodernism”, n.d.). Students are encouraged to decode the meaning of contemporary visual paraphernalia and represent it in a metaphorical way, which is theory centric and therefore, allows for multiple interpretations from viewers; a notion which is very much in line with Umberto Eco’s theory on the “open text” (Bondanella, 1997).
Conflating Classical and Contemporary Visual Arts Training
Is it possible for a model of contemporary visual arts training to be conceived which embraces both; traditional and progressive practices in the twenty-first century? Perhaps, however, this proposition may sound somewhat idealistic, due to higher education administrative affairs concerning time, assessment and the ongoing issue of embracing new technologies to create contemporary art, which ultimately reflects the progress of our times. Another obvious issue lies in the willingness that the faculty of university art programs must have to undergo professional development, in order to learn the principles, methods and ideologies of historical visual arts practices. Many lecturers may not wish to partake in this kind of training, because they simply do not have interest. How then are they supposed to teach these principles and methods to their students? It seems inevitable that an art school which has theoretical underpinnings that embraces both; traditional and progressive visual arts training would result in complicated institutional politics, that would ultimately lead to prejudice and division (Gottsegen, 2003; Goldstein, 1996; Richards, n.d.).
Studying the current “atelier movement” reveals that students are leaving higher education visual arts programs and attending ateliers, due to their frustration in the lack of technical instruction available to them (hummel1dane, 2009). This has led to ateliers being marginalised and depreciated in the broader context of twenty-first century visual arts pedagogy. It appears as though an “us and them” attitude has emerged and this has created hostility between the two schools (Gottsegen, 2003; Ross, 2014; Richards, n.d.). Many scholars would argue that due to recent trends in the art world, the relevance of representational art is being revaluated and deemed worthy once again (Seed, 2015). Although, the form of representationalism that these scholars refer to is not that which is traditional, well-crafted and humanist, but rather, that which is progressive, photographic and shocking. Traditional representational art is still met with an attitude of non-acceptance and consequently, contemporary artists with traditional and classical values have become ostracised and neglected by the contemporary art world (Panero, 2016).
These artists are then forced to agglomerate into small studio-schools (ateliers) and form communities, which are outside the dominant art establishment. Similarly to Gammell and Lack; directors of these schools feel an obligation to pass on their body of knowledge, therefore, they continue to train and nurture outsider art students who come to find them (Panero, 2016). These students are able to find consolation in these environments, through sharing dialogue with others who have values aligned with their own (“Jacob Collins with”, 2016). Social constructivism plays a major role and becomes vital to the student’s development, as more experienced artists are able to share discoveries they have made, in turn, guiding the student with their own work and thus, alleviating any concerns they may have with their training. This in turn, elevates the quality of artwork being produced by the community, through creating an environment of healthy competition and comradery (“Jacob Collins with”, 2016).
Despite being negated and dismissed by contemporary art and cultural critics, the atelier model of visual arts training still manages to flourish in the face of adversity (Fernandez, 2017). More schools are being established all over the globe annually, creating many opportunities for art students wishing to seek academic training in drawing, painting and sculpture (“Figurative art convention”, 2017; “The representational art”, 2018). Although, still a relatively small movement, culture seems to be recognising the relevance of traditional representational art; albeit rather slowly (“Newington-cropsey cultural”, 2017; “Salmagundi club”, 2017; “MEAM European museum”, 2017; “The Victorian artists”, 2017). Many artists are also seeing the benefits in academic training and therefore, they are dedicating years of their lives to developing proficiency and dexterity in order to master manual drafting, painting and sculpting processes (Trippi, 2012; Fernandez, 2017, 2015; Malafronte, 2017; Kilarski, 2017). Furthermore, TAFE and university art programs still fail to recognise the advantages and benefits of academic visual arts pedagogy. Will an institution ever be established where both, traditional and progressive visual arts training can co-exist? Possibly, although this essay has evidenced that such a model cannot prevail without friction.
References
Admissions & aid. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.florenceacademyofart.com/index.php/en/admissions-aid
Annigoni, P. (1947). Manifesto of “modern painters of reality”. Retrieved from https://www.artrenewal.org/Article/Title/the- annigoni-manifesto
Aristides, J. (2006). Classical drawing atelier: A contemporary guide to traditional studio practice. New York: Watson-Guptill.
Bachelor of fine arts (visual art). (2018). Retrieved from http://vca.unimelb.edu.au/study/degrees/bachelor-of-fine-arts-visual-art/overview
Bondanella, P. (1997). Umberto Eco and the open text. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Bougie, P. (1995). Gammell and his students. Classical Realism Journal, 2(2). Retrieved from https://www.artrenewal.org/Article/Title/gammell-and-his-students
Bougie, P. (1998). The Bougie Studio: Continuing a long tradition of training painters. Resource Library Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.tfaoi.com/newsasn/newsa19.htm
Cecil, C. (2009). The visual image: Silence and slow time. Retrieved from http://www.charlescecilstudios.com/wp-content/uploads/Charles-H.-Cecil-The-Visual-Image-Silence-and-Slow-Time.pdf
Diploma of visual arts. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.rmit.edu.au/study-with-us/levels-of-study/vocational-study/diplomas/c5348?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-P3v5M6X2AIVDWG9Ch0NWQQdEAAYAiAAEgIYl_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Fernandez, M. (2017, March 16). A Resurgence of art: Ateliers lead the art world towards exalting excellence in beauty [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.theepochtimes.com/a-resurgence-of-art_2231295.html
Fernandez, M. (2015, June 9). Artist and atelier founder Jacob Collins on the vitality of masterful art [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.theepochtimes.com/artist-and-atelier-founder-jacob-collins-on-the-vitality-of-masterful-art_1384505.html
Figurative Art Convention & Expo. (2017). Retrieved from https://figurativeartconvention.com
Gammell, R. H. I. (1946). Chapter VIII: Considerations on impressionist teaching. In R. H. I. Gammell (Ed.), Twilight of painting (p. 96). Massachusetts: Parnassus Imprints.
General description. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.florenceacademyofart.com/category_certificate_programs/drawing-painting/general-description-drawing/
Gjertson, S. (2001). Richard F. Lack: An American master (1st ed.). Minneapolis: The American Society of Classical Realism.
Gjertson, S. Richard Lack (1928-2009): A reminiscence. (2010). Retrieved from https://stephengjertsongalleries.com/richard-lack-a-reminiscence/
Gjertson, S. Classical Realism: A living artistic tradition. (2010). Retrieved from https://stephengjertsongalleries.com/classical-realism-a-living-artistic-tradition/#more-505
Goldstein, C. (1996). Teaching art: Academies and schools from Vasari to Albers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gottsegen, D. M. (2003). The Decline of the visual education of artists and the remedy. Retrieved from https://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Decline_Education/decline.php
Graves, D. (2003). Tradition in the 21st century. Retrieved from
http://www.florenceacademyofart.com/images/Documents/dgraves.pdf
Gray, D. (n.d.). The art education problem. Retrieved from https://www.artrenewal.org/Article/Title/the-art-education-problem
History (n.d). Retrieved from http://theatelier.org/history.html
Holsapple, K. (1998). The atelier experience. Resource Library Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.tfaoi.com/newsasn /newsa23.htm
Hummel1dane. (2009, June 13th). Realism vs construction (a guide to choosing the right art education) [Online forum post]. Retrieved from http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php/160487-Realism-vs-construction(a-guide-to-choosing-the-right-art-education)
Jacob Collins with Mary Ann Caws: Thinking about ateliers. (2016). Retrieved from https://brooklynrail.org/2016/04/art/thinking-about-ateliers
J. Hess Studios: Fine art painting studio & classical atelier. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.jhessstudios.com/read-me
Kamhi, M. M. (1990). R.H. Ives Gammell. Aristos: The Journal of Esthetics, 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.aristos.org/backissu/gammell.htm
Kearns, S. (2009, June 8th). Studying with R.H. Ives Gammell [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://stapletonkearns.blogspot.com.au/2009/06/studying-with-r-h-ives-gammell.html
Kearney, R. (1984). Dialogues with contemporary continental thinkers: The phenomenological heritage. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Keller, G. D. (2015, Summer). The craft and art of drawing. Linea: The Artist’s Voice. Retrieved from https://www.theartstudentsleague.org/linea-art-journal
Kilarski, S. (2017, January 24). Art educator Mandy Hallenius: Classical training in art opens creative choices [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2210092-art-educator-mandy-hallenius-classical-training-in-art-opens-creative-choices
Malafronte, A. In the studio: Scott Waddell (2017). Retrieved from: http://www.nccsc.net/studio-visits-allison/studio-scott-waddell
MEAM European Museum of Modern Art. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.meam.es/en
Newington-Cropsey Cultural Studies Center: Art and culture now. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.nccsc.net
Panero, J. (2016, Winter). The new old masters: New Yorker Jacob Collins and his devoted students seek a radical reclamation of artistic tradition. City Journal. Retrieved from https://www.city-journal.org/html/new-old-masters-14188.html
Postmodernism. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/p/postmodernism
Richard F. Lack (1928-2009). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.gandygallery.com/art/Masters/Richard_Lack/index.htm
Richards, K. (n.d.). The atelier versus academia. Retrieved from https://artrenewal.org/Article/Title/the-atelier-versus-academia
Ross, F. (2014). Why Realism? Artists keynote address to Connecticut Society of Portrait Artists [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from https://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/Why_Realism/why_realism.php
Salmagundi Club: A center for American art since 1871. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.salmagundi.org
Seed, J. (2015, November 30th). Hell has frozen over: Figurative art is poised to become the next big thing [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-seed/hell-has-frozen-over-figu_b_8683186.html
The Representational Art Conference (2018). Retrieved from http://trac2018.com
The Victorian Artists’ Society. (2017). Retrieved from http://victorianartistssociety.com.au
Trippi, P. (2012, November/December). Ateliers today: A new Renaissance? Fine Art Connoisseur, 77-79. Retrieved from: http://www.goldengateatelier.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FineArtConnoisseurDec2012.pdf
Torres, L. (2006). The legacy of Richard Lack. Aristos: The Journal of Esthetics, 1-3. Retrieved from https://www.aristos.org/aris-06/lack.htm
By Emilio Longo
2015 (revised 2018)
The training of artists in the twenty-first century is a concept that seems to raise two different arguments. The first concerns issues surrounding “content” and the second, with more traditional ideas of “craft”. It seems as we progressed into the twentieth-century, the historical standards of craftsmanship that once governed the creation of representational drawings, paintings and sculptures became obsolete; due to a number of progressive, social and political reasons (Annigoni, 1947; Graves, 2003; Cecil, 2009; Ross, 2014; Gottsegen, 2003). Consequently, current Australian (and international) TAFE and university art programs seem to favour the argument of “content over craft” (“Diploma of visual”, 2018; “Bachelor of fine”, 2018). This has resulted in generations of art students being uninformed about the principles, methods and ideologies exemplified in traditional visual arts practices (Gray, n.d; Keller, 2015; Ross, 2014).
This essay will explore the atelier (studio, or workshop) model and the contemporary model of higher education visual arts training, to learn of their differences. An explanation on the origins of the atelier and how it has survived by means of lineage will be given. Moreover, higher education art programs and the atelier model will be evaluated, to arrive at the understanding of whether they can co-exist, in one setting. This will ultimately lead to the conclusion, by considering the place that the atelier occupies in twenty-first century visual arts pedagogy.
Deconstruction of the Atelier Model
The nineteenth-century was the period that the atelier was most prevalent (Bougie, 1998). During this time, Paris was the center of the art world. Therefore, the city attracted art students from all over the globe, who wanted to gain the skills necessary, in order to create masterful art (Goldstein, 1996). Many Americans such as; Thomas Eakins and John Singer Sargent studied in Paris. In fact, 2,200 Americans born by 1880 had undergone academic training in Paris (Holsapple, 1998). Once they received their training in an academy and/or private atelier, many of these artists returned home to begin teaching and passing on the French academic tradition. However, at this time no atelier, or academy like the French models became established in America (Holsapple, 1998). In mentioning these artists’ formative years; a point must be made to emphasise that academic training was not an easy endeavour. The road to mastery required the student to be submissive to their master and to have the perseverance to undergo many years of disciplined art instruction (Gjertson, 2001). Diligence, patience and tenacity were essential qualities that every student possessed, in order to be successful with their training. A quote from the eighteenth-century French painter, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin, provides us with valuable insight into the struggles of the student undergoing academic training;
“They put a crayon in our hands when we are seven or eight years old. We begin to draw from models of eyes, mouths, noses, ears, then of feet and hands. For a long period our backs are bent over our portfolios in front of the Hercules or the Torso and you have not seen the tears brought on by this Satyr, this Gladiator, this Venus de Medici, this Antaeus…. After we have spent days and worked nights by lamplight before stationary and inanimate forms they confront us with life and, suddenly, the labour of all the preceding years seems to count for nothing…. One must teach the eye to see nature, and how many have not seen it and never will! It is the torment of our lives. We are kept working five or six years from the living model before they turn us over to our own genius, if we have any…. He who has not realised the difficulties of this art does in it nothing worthwhile” (Gammell, 1946, p. 96).
As the twentieth-century approached, the options that art students had to receive training was limited to universities, museums and independent Modernist art schools (Gottsegen, 2003). It is precisely at this time that the atelier model disintegrated and consequently, the quality of drawings, paintings and sculptures suffered greatly (Graves, 2003). The academic methods which had been passed on from master-to-pupil for centuries, had now become lost. However, due to the efforts of a few courageous artist-teachers, the atelier system of training managed to be saved and preserved until our current day, by means of lineage (Trippi, 2012; Fernandez, 2017).
Survival Through Lineage
R.H. Ives Gammell was a painter, author and teacher, who has an important place in the history of American Realism (Gjertson, 2010; Kamhi, 1990). Gammell was born in Providence, Rhode Island in 1893, at about the same time that the French academies and ateliers were being deconstructed (Graves, 2003). In 1911, he enrolled in the School of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, where he met impressionist painters who included; Edmund C. Tarbell, Frank W. Benson, Joseph R. DeCamp and William M. Paxton (Bougie, 1995). This confraternity of artists were part of the Boston School and had received academic training from teachers who were in the lineage of the nineteenth-century French academic tradition (Gjertson, 2010; Graves, 2003). The Boston School painters were competent academic draughtsman and were inspired by the colours used by the French impressionists. The most distinguished painter from the school was Paxton, who would ultimately become Gammell’s mentor (Graves, 2003).
Paxton was an American painter, who had studied with the nineteenth-century French academic artist, Jean-Léon Gérôme at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts (School of Fine Arts) in Paris (Kamhi, 1990; Gjertson, 2001). Gammell absorbed Paxton’s teachings and would come to pass on his knowledge of traditional picture-making, for the remainder of his life. A case can be made that Gammell’s legacy is not only remembered as an important painter, but also for the writings he made, where he explained the principles and craft of the previous centuries of picture-making. Through his teaching, he was able to pass on these values to his students (Kamhi, 1990).
In 1946, Gammell wrote a book titled; Twilight of Painting, which he dedicated to future art students (Gammell, 1946). In this book, he explains why the great workmanship of painters from previous centuries was destroyed, by the advent of Modernism and the avant-garde (Gammell, 1946). Gammell started teaching in the 1930s, however, his most serious students came to find him in 1946, after Twilight of Painting was published (Bougie, 1995).
Gammell taught at the Fenway Studios in Boston, where many students came to him, after relating to what he wrote about in his book (Kearns, 2009). These students were frustrated about the propagation of abstraction that art schools supported during this period. Gammell would keep his class sizes to a minimum, to ensure he had adequate one-on-one time with each of his students (a strategy which was used in the nineteenth-century French ateliers). An important point to acknowledge is that Gammell charged his students no fees, as he was an independently wealthy man (Bougie, 1995). He saw it as his responsibility to pass on the great tradition of picture-making to the next generation of artists, as it was passed on to him. And he expected that his students would do the same for the subsequent generation (Bougie, 1995). There were instances when a student would contact Gammell to see about training with him and he would say no; he was testing the student’s will power to see how eagerly they wanted to learn this art form (he would expect them to have the persistence to ask again) (Bougie, 1995). Gammell never underestimated the difficulties of learning the craft and art of traditional picture-making, he stated;
“The creation of an effective expression or illusion of three-dimensional reality on a flat surface is a heartbreakingly difficult art. Only a few individuals are born in each generation with sufficient talent to be good painters, fewer still to be great ones” (as cited in Kamhi, 1990, p. 2).
Many of Gammell’s students became painters of great calibre; many of which are still alive and working today (Gjertson, 2001). To re-emphasise Gammell’s relevance in the history of American painting, it is important to understand more about the lineage he belongs to. As was mentioned earlier; Gammell’s teacher was Paxton, whose teacher was Gérôme. To go even further back; Gérôme’s teacher was Paul Delaroche, in turn, whose teacher was Antoine-Jean Gros. Finally, Gros’s teacher was the preeminent nineteenth-century Neoclassical French painter; Jacques-Louis David (“J. Hess studios”, n.d.).
One of Gammell’s most influential pupils was a painter and teacher by the name of Richard F. Lack (Torres, 2006). After Gammell’s death in 1981, Lack became the artist who carried on Gammell’s legacy, through passing on his teachings to the next generation of students (Gjertson, 2001). He would also become the artist who is regarded as the founder of the contemporary atelier movement (Aristides, 2006). Lack’s training began at the Minneapolis School of Art. However, his interest in connecting to a form of painting which he could not find in a Modernist art school, led him to Fenway studios in Boston, to study with Gammell from 1950 to 1956 (“Richard F. Lack”, n.d.).
In 1969, Lack opened Atelier Lack in Minneapolis; the curriculum of which was based on what he had learnt from Gammell (“Richard F. Lack”, n.d.). Atelier Lack became the environment that kept traditional picture-making alive and well, through offering rigorous academic drawing and painting instruction, which was based on the principles and methods used by the nineteenth-century French ateliers and the Boston school (Gjertson, 2010). At this time, Atelier Lack was one of the few places in the world where one could get an academic training in drawing and painting (“Richard F. Lack”, n.d.). Many of Lack’s students became fine painters and in turn, opened ateliers of their own; the majority of which were based on the model of Atelier Lack (Gjertson, 2001). This has ultimately resulted in the fulfillment of both, Gammell and Lack’s life’s work.
Lack is also credited for coining the term Classical Realism. He used the term in an article that was written about his work relating to his solo exhibition held in Minneapolis in 1974 (Torres, 2006). He then used the term in 1982 for an exhibition that he and his students organised titled; Classical Realism: The Other Twentieth Century (Torres, 2006). "Classical Realism" was established to differentiate their work from that of other styles of realism which were prevalent at the time. Artworks that are referred to as “Classical Realism” exhibit a combination of nineteenth-century French academic draughtsmanship and the colour of the Boston School (Gjertson, 2010). Today, the term is generally used to identify the work of artists’ who have trained in an atelier (although, this is a far cry from what Lack intended the term to mean).
In 1992, Lack retired from teaching and two of his former students; Dale Redpath and Cyd Wicker took over Atelier Lack, moved it to another location (although still located in Minneapolis) and renamed it The Atelier, which is still functioning today (“Histroy”, n.d.). Richard Lack passed away in September, 2009 (Gjertson, 2010).
As was mentioned previously; many of Lack’s students opened ateliers which are based on his teachings. The majority of these ateliers are offering a rigorous, three-to-four-year program, whereby students are trained in the disciplines of academic drawing, painting and sculpture (“General description”, n.d.). These enviroments have become established all over the world and students travel internationally in search of academic training, which they are not able to find in TAFE and university art programs.
The Concept of Training in Contemporary Visual Arts Pedagogy
Visual arts training is a concept that has become convoluted in the framework of higher education (Gottsegen, 2003). “Training” in university art schools is based on the familiarisation and implication of computer based programs, that is; becoming familiar with digital image processing, video art and an emphasis on new media experimentation is generally encouraged (“Diploma of visual”, 2018; “Bachelor of fine”, 2018). Terms such as; “unlearning” and “deskilling” are promoted in these contexts, in order to persuade students away from pursuing traditional approaches to artmaking (Gray, n.d.). Training in the business of being a contemporary, exhibiting artist is also given, that is; how to write grants and proposals, how to establish an online presence and how to apply to galleries (which is often encouraged while the student is still in their first year of art school). The idea of lineage is irrelevant in these contexts, due to the nature of contemporary art being autonomous (Kearney, 1984).
This form of training is satisfactory and it is no question that it has a place in the sphere of twenty-first century visual arts pedagogy. However, this training is often propagandised by academia, through an elitist attitude that promotes this contemporary approach as the only valid model of visual arts training (Ross, 2014; Gottsegen, 2003). As a result, academic drawing, painting and sculpting principles and methods have become extraneous in these environments. The students who are interested in traditional art, are then ultimately viewed as reactionaries; conservative luddites if you will. This kind of ignorance can be detrimental to the technical and aesthetic formation of contemporary art students’ (Keller, 2015). Invariably, students who are interested in drawing, painting and sculpting as it is traditionally know, still need to be taught the theories behind the principles of the crafts and how to apply them in practice, in order to create art with technical and aesthetic intelligence.
It appears that the model of higher education visual arts training and that of the atelier, are polar opposites. The former being devoted to complete freedom without any discipline, concerned only with students’ conceptual development and the latter devoted to attaining craft and training the eye, without any kind of conceptual formation, creating;
“Content-starved realist artists, who can draw beautiful figures but cannot incorporate the figure into a meaningful narrative” (as cited in Trippi, 2012, p. 79).
The solution to this dilemma seems simple. Higher education art programs need to offer both, traditional and progressive visual arts training in a neutral context, in order for them to co-exist. One can be a student in the painting department of a TAFE, or university art program and receive no information on the actual principles and working methods of painting. Instead, a belief in finding one’s inner voice and individuality is encouraged. Furthermore, an environment where; “you can do whatever you want” is the mantra, with hardly any discussion on craftsmanship, or the mastery of technical procedures. This doctrine results in artworks being produced that are a “expressions of the painterly”, which then become removed from the idea of painting, as it has traditionally been known. Should then the department still be called painting? Perhaps a more appropriate title would be; “experimental practice”, or “alternative art”. This would more accurately describe the doings of many higher education painting departments. This ultimately leads to the question; what then is painting today?
As has been advocated in this essay; the main problem lies within the inaccessibility of learning the principles, crafts and values of the traditional visual arts, in the TAFE and university sector. Traditional visual arts training is out there, however, it is only available to those who are willing to re-locate and pay upfront, a substantial amount of money for this somewhat anachronistic art education; this seems like an injustice (“Admissions & aid”, n.d.). We are not that far away from the nineteenth-century French academic tradition. As has been evidenced; it is only as far as a teacher’s, teacher’s, teacher and we have access to some of the knowledge that the academic artists of the nineteenth-century had.
This essay is by no means trying to imply that older ways of art making should replace the new. Rather, this essay supports the argument that it is the form of the great art of the past, which many art students wish to reconnect with. One still needs to have something to say which relates to our current times and this is precisely why the doctrine supported by TAFE and university art programs is valid. They offer the cutting edge of contemporary visual arts education, for they guide students in developing an analytical mind, by helping them engage in higher order abstract thinking (“Diploma of visual”, 2018; “Bachelor of fine”, 2018). Students become familiar with current issues through their studio investigations and research, which ultimately reveals the state of the world today. The agenda of contemporary visual arts training is still in line with training students to see. Although, “seeing” is no longer taught through a technical, craft based, “eye training” sense, but rather, from an intellectual and theoretically critical, visual analysis perspective (“Postmodernism”, n.d.). Students are encouraged to decode the meaning of contemporary visual paraphernalia and represent it in a metaphorical way, which is theory centric and therefore, allows for multiple interpretations from viewers; a notion which is very much in line with Umberto Eco’s theory on the “open text” (Bondanella, 1997).
Conflating Classical and Contemporary Visual Arts Training
Is it possible for a model of contemporary visual arts training to be conceived which embraces both; traditional and progressive practices in the twenty-first century? Perhaps, however, this proposition may sound somewhat idealistic, due to higher education administrative affairs concerning time, assessment and the ongoing issue of embracing new technologies to create contemporary art, which ultimately reflects the progress of our times. Another obvious issue lies in the willingness that the faculty of university art programs must have to undergo professional development, in order to learn the principles, methods and ideologies of historical visual arts practices. Many lecturers may not wish to partake in this kind of training, because they simply do not have interest. How then are they supposed to teach these principles and methods to their students? It seems inevitable that an art school which has theoretical underpinnings that embraces both; traditional and progressive visual arts training would result in complicated institutional politics, that would ultimately lead to prejudice and division (Gottsegen, 2003; Goldstein, 1996; Richards, n.d.).
Studying the current “atelier movement” reveals that students are leaving higher education visual arts programs and attending ateliers, due to their frustration in the lack of technical instruction available to them (hummel1dane, 2009). This has led to ateliers being marginalised and depreciated in the broader context of twenty-first century visual arts pedagogy. It appears as though an “us and them” attitude has emerged and this has created hostility between the two schools (Gottsegen, 2003; Ross, 2014; Richards, n.d.). Many scholars would argue that due to recent trends in the art world, the relevance of representational art is being revaluated and deemed worthy once again (Seed, 2015). Although, the form of representationalism that these scholars refer to is not that which is traditional, well-crafted and humanist, but rather, that which is progressive, photographic and shocking. Traditional representational art is still met with an attitude of non-acceptance and consequently, contemporary artists with traditional and classical values have become ostracised and neglected by the contemporary art world (Panero, 2016).
These artists are then forced to agglomerate into small studio-schools (ateliers) and form communities, which are outside the dominant art establishment. Similarly to Gammell and Lack; directors of these schools feel an obligation to pass on their body of knowledge, therefore, they continue to train and nurture outsider art students who come to find them (Panero, 2016). These students are able to find consolation in these environments, through sharing dialogue with others who have values aligned with their own (“Jacob Collins with”, 2016). Social constructivism plays a major role and becomes vital to the student’s development, as more experienced artists are able to share discoveries they have made, in turn, guiding the student with their own work and thus, alleviating any concerns they may have with their training. This in turn, elevates the quality of artwork being produced by the community, through creating an environment of healthy competition and comradery (“Jacob Collins with”, 2016).
Despite being negated and dismissed by contemporary art and cultural critics, the atelier model of visual arts training still manages to flourish in the face of adversity (Fernandez, 2017). More schools are being established all over the globe annually, creating many opportunities for art students wishing to seek academic training in drawing, painting and sculpture (“Figurative art convention”, 2017; “The representational art”, 2018). Although, still a relatively small movement, culture seems to be recognising the relevance of traditional representational art; albeit rather slowly (“Newington-cropsey cultural”, 2017; “Salmagundi club”, 2017; “MEAM European museum”, 2017; “The Victorian artists”, 2017). Many artists are also seeing the benefits in academic training and therefore, they are dedicating years of their lives to developing proficiency and dexterity in order to master manual drafting, painting and sculpting processes (Trippi, 2012; Fernandez, 2017, 2015; Malafronte, 2017; Kilarski, 2017). Furthermore, TAFE and university art programs still fail to recognise the advantages and benefits of academic visual arts pedagogy. Will an institution ever be established where both, traditional and progressive visual arts training can co-exist? Possibly, although this essay has evidenced that such a model cannot prevail without friction.
References
Admissions & aid. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.florenceacademyofart.com/index.php/en/admissions-aid
Annigoni, P. (1947). Manifesto of “modern painters of reality”. Retrieved from https://www.artrenewal.org/Article/Title/the- annigoni-manifesto
Aristides, J. (2006). Classical drawing atelier: A contemporary guide to traditional studio practice. New York: Watson-Guptill.
Bachelor of fine arts (visual art). (2018). Retrieved from http://vca.unimelb.edu.au/study/degrees/bachelor-of-fine-arts-visual-art/overview
Bondanella, P. (1997). Umberto Eco and the open text. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Bougie, P. (1995). Gammell and his students. Classical Realism Journal, 2(2). Retrieved from https://www.artrenewal.org/Article/Title/gammell-and-his-students
Bougie, P. (1998). The Bougie Studio: Continuing a long tradition of training painters. Resource Library Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.tfaoi.com/newsasn/newsa19.htm
Cecil, C. (2009). The visual image: Silence and slow time. Retrieved from http://www.charlescecilstudios.com/wp-content/uploads/Charles-H.-Cecil-The-Visual-Image-Silence-and-Slow-Time.pdf
Diploma of visual arts. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.rmit.edu.au/study-with-us/levels-of-study/vocational-study/diplomas/c5348?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-P3v5M6X2AIVDWG9Ch0NWQQdEAAYAiAAEgIYl_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Fernandez, M. (2017, March 16). A Resurgence of art: Ateliers lead the art world towards exalting excellence in beauty [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.theepochtimes.com/a-resurgence-of-art_2231295.html
Fernandez, M. (2015, June 9). Artist and atelier founder Jacob Collins on the vitality of masterful art [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.theepochtimes.com/artist-and-atelier-founder-jacob-collins-on-the-vitality-of-masterful-art_1384505.html
Figurative Art Convention & Expo. (2017). Retrieved from https://figurativeartconvention.com
Gammell, R. H. I. (1946). Chapter VIII: Considerations on impressionist teaching. In R. H. I. Gammell (Ed.), Twilight of painting (p. 96). Massachusetts: Parnassus Imprints.
General description. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.florenceacademyofart.com/category_certificate_programs/drawing-painting/general-description-drawing/
Gjertson, S. (2001). Richard F. Lack: An American master (1st ed.). Minneapolis: The American Society of Classical Realism.
Gjertson, S. Richard Lack (1928-2009): A reminiscence. (2010). Retrieved from https://stephengjertsongalleries.com/richard-lack-a-reminiscence/
Gjertson, S. Classical Realism: A living artistic tradition. (2010). Retrieved from https://stephengjertsongalleries.com/classical-realism-a-living-artistic-tradition/#more-505
Goldstein, C. (1996). Teaching art: Academies and schools from Vasari to Albers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gottsegen, D. M. (2003). The Decline of the visual education of artists and the remedy. Retrieved from https://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Decline_Education/decline.php
Graves, D. (2003). Tradition in the 21st century. Retrieved from
http://www.florenceacademyofart.com/images/Documents/dgraves.pdf
Gray, D. (n.d.). The art education problem. Retrieved from https://www.artrenewal.org/Article/Title/the-art-education-problem
History (n.d). Retrieved from http://theatelier.org/history.html
Holsapple, K. (1998). The atelier experience. Resource Library Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.tfaoi.com/newsasn /newsa23.htm
Hummel1dane. (2009, June 13th). Realism vs construction (a guide to choosing the right art education) [Online forum post]. Retrieved from http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php/160487-Realism-vs-construction(a-guide-to-choosing-the-right-art-education)
Jacob Collins with Mary Ann Caws: Thinking about ateliers. (2016). Retrieved from https://brooklynrail.org/2016/04/art/thinking-about-ateliers
J. Hess Studios: Fine art painting studio & classical atelier. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.jhessstudios.com/read-me
Kamhi, M. M. (1990). R.H. Ives Gammell. Aristos: The Journal of Esthetics, 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.aristos.org/backissu/gammell.htm
Kearns, S. (2009, June 8th). Studying with R.H. Ives Gammell [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://stapletonkearns.blogspot.com.au/2009/06/studying-with-r-h-ives-gammell.html
Kearney, R. (1984). Dialogues with contemporary continental thinkers: The phenomenological heritage. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Keller, G. D. (2015, Summer). The craft and art of drawing. Linea: The Artist’s Voice. Retrieved from https://www.theartstudentsleague.org/linea-art-journal
Kilarski, S. (2017, January 24). Art educator Mandy Hallenius: Classical training in art opens creative choices [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2210092-art-educator-mandy-hallenius-classical-training-in-art-opens-creative-choices
Malafronte, A. In the studio: Scott Waddell (2017). Retrieved from: http://www.nccsc.net/studio-visits-allison/studio-scott-waddell
MEAM European Museum of Modern Art. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.meam.es/en
Newington-Cropsey Cultural Studies Center: Art and culture now. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.nccsc.net
Panero, J. (2016, Winter). The new old masters: New Yorker Jacob Collins and his devoted students seek a radical reclamation of artistic tradition. City Journal. Retrieved from https://www.city-journal.org/html/new-old-masters-14188.html
Postmodernism. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/p/postmodernism
Richard F. Lack (1928-2009). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.gandygallery.com/art/Masters/Richard_Lack/index.htm
Richards, K. (n.d.). The atelier versus academia. Retrieved from https://artrenewal.org/Article/Title/the-atelier-versus-academia
Ross, F. (2014). Why Realism? Artists keynote address to Connecticut Society of Portrait Artists [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from https://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/Why_Realism/why_realism.php
Salmagundi Club: A center for American art since 1871. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.salmagundi.org
Seed, J. (2015, November 30th). Hell has frozen over: Figurative art is poised to become the next big thing [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-seed/hell-has-frozen-over-figu_b_8683186.html
The Representational Art Conference (2018). Retrieved from http://trac2018.com
The Victorian Artists’ Society. (2017). Retrieved from http://victorianartistssociety.com.au
Trippi, P. (2012, November/December). Ateliers today: A new Renaissance? Fine Art Connoisseur, 77-79. Retrieved from: http://www.goldengateatelier.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FineArtConnoisseurDec2012.pdf
Torres, L. (2006). The legacy of Richard Lack. Aristos: The Journal of Esthetics, 1-3. Retrieved from https://www.aristos.org/aris-06/lack.htm
Copyright © 2024 Skill-Based Art - All Rights Reserved. No part of this website, including images of artworks, text, essays, audio and video may be reproduced, or transferred to other websites, in whole, in part, or in any form, unless written consent has been obtained from the website's author. Such consent may be given by contacting:
[email protected].
[email protected].