This is an issue that affects art teachers as well.  I went to what many
consider the finest art school in the country (School of the Art Institute
of Chicago) and decided after I received my BFA that I would like to teach
art as well as make it.  Some of my less astute (IMHO) colleagues told me to
try and "make it" in the art world before I "resorted" to teaching.  The
majority of reasoning lobbied in my direction was that I had earned my
chops, so to speak, at a great school and would be wasting my education by
teaching.  I'm sure the response you had to your situation was more civil
than mine, but I did question why people assumed I was throwing in the art
towel by teaching.  The "if you can't do, teach" mentality is very strong in
the art education world (unless it is at a college level), so I'm not
surprised to read that a similar notion exists in the art history one.  I
don't know when this two dimensional way of looking at various art
professions arose, but it has probably stopped more than a few people from
realizing their teaching/academic potential.

While I'm perched up here, I want to address whether or not your friend was
implying that artists are not intellectual or scholarly.  Any good program
will integrate a solid art history foundation into their fine arts
curriculum.  Some of the most stimulating classes I've ever had were art
history classes that helped me place my work in context.  From what memories
I can cull, not one of my teachers ever had to dumb down our class because
s/he was teaching to artists.  The artist as hyper-emotional reactionary is
largely a media creation.  We can make it *and* think about it *and* chew
gum at the same time.

Knowing where you fit in the spectrum of art is essential.  Stay true to
your course.

Adrian

_______________________________________________

Adrian Perez
Educator
John G. Shedd Aquarium
312/692-3166
[log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Medina F [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 2:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Art History vs. Fine Arts


Good Day All,

I have a brief question.  I'm an Art History major at NYU.  During
elementary and high school I went to a special academy for Fine Arts.  At
NYU I decided to major in Art History (with a secondary in Fine Arts).  I
spoke with someone at my company who informed me that someone skilled in
Fine Arts should not pursue Art History.  She said it's for
intellectuals/scholars not for "doers".  After I finished being insulted
(I'm a young and impressionable student), I wondered if there was any truth
to what she said.  Could someone offer any relevant information?  I'd
greatly appreciate it.  Thanks!

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).