A few weeks ago, I came across fellow wildlife artist, Crista Forest’s blog post “Encourage or Discourage Young Artists?” where she talked about how many professional artists report having been discouraged from becoming an artist when they were young. Forest questioned the wisdom of well-meaning parents, teachers or guidance counsellors who tell artistically talented young people, “That’s nice, but you need a real job – you can always paint in your spare time.” I’d have to say my own experiences were largely similar. I know when I was in university I certainly didn’t tell my family I wanted to be an artist – I told them I was studying fine art and art history so I could teach. The post did get me thinking about other experiences I’ve had along this road and how similar or different my experiences have been compared to what I’ve heard/read about other artists.
One of the things that has caught my attention when talking to/reading about other wildlife artists is: of the number who have formal (university/college) art training how many of those say that, despite a life-long interest in drawing/painting animals, they were discouraged from making the sort of art which had inspired them in the first place in favour of non-animal subject matter in the fine art style de jour. One example is artist Debbie Edgers Sturges, who was interviewed in the Mar-Apr 2007 issue of Wildlife Art Magazine, and said, “In graduate school, they encouraged us to dig down deep into some very nasty places… I knew for my own mental health that wasn’t where I wanted to live. I knew where I’d be living; I’d be painting my loves – the outdoors and animals.” Another is artist Lori McNee Watson, interviewed in the Sept-Oct 2007 issue, who said of her university art experience that she, “found herself in conflict with professors who expressed a kind of contempt toward the traditional style… [she] sought to free herself from the the contemporary art box constructed by her academic advisors.” I know this to be true of my own university experience: one of my instructors was dead set against any animals appearing in my work, figures were fine with as long as I didn’t render them too tightly, but no animals allowed. It wasn’t until Marsha Kennedy agreed to act as my faculty supervisor that animals began to creep back into my work.
The artist who has spoken out most strongly (and articulately) about the subject of the attitude of the art establishment (of which fine art departments in universities and colleges are a large part) toward wildlife art is Robert Bateman. Bateman grew up birdwatching, watching nature and making drawings and paintings based on what he saw. It wasn’t until his adulthood that “real” university trained artists told him that representation was out, real art was done with “big brushes.” Bateman believes the art establishment has divided the art world into “Tought Art and Easy Art.” Tough Art is difficult to understand and requires the interpetation of the art establishment and that makes it real art; whereas, Easy Art is appreciated by average members of the public and that makes it decorative or illustration.
I don’t know what your university art experience was like, but I think the thing that bothered me the most about mine was this: in one breath I had art instructors encouraging me to work on projects and subjects that captured my imagination, to create work that drew on my own personal experiences and internal imagery, and then with the next breath tell me that using animals as my subject matter was unimaginative. If art is a work “exhibiting a human creative skill” (Oxford English Dictionary) then how can one limit what art is and how can a university, of all places, tell artists what subject matter can and cannot inspire them?
